BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities Bill [ Lords]  (By Order)

Motion made, That the Bill be read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	 Bill to be read a Second time on Wednesday 20 January.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked-

Armed Forces (Morale)

Bob Spink: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the morale of members of the armed forces based in Scotland returning from active service.

Jim Murphy: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. The men and women of our armed forces are remarkable people and I have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues about support for our armed forces and their families.

Bob Spink: I thank the Secretary of State for that response, with which I totally agree, and for his good work in Scotland. Does he agree that people in Scotland want to see our returning heroes-and particularly those with families-treated with dignity? That means that they should be given priority in housing and should not be made homeless, which is what happens at the moment in Castle Point.

Jim Murphy: I agree with the sentiment behind the hon. Gentleman's question. Although I do not know the details, I am sure that he understands that when it comes to situations such as that in Castle Point, whether they arise north or south of the border, we need to handle our returning heroes with great care and sensitivity, including when it comes to issues relating to housing. Local connections to local areas should be properly taken into account, and if that is not happening in Castle Point, I think that most of the hon. Gentleman's constituents would consider that to be shabby.

Michael Connarty: Will my right hon. Friend raise the question of psychological and psychiatric services in particular, because cases that have come to me recently have highlighted serious deficiencies? Although I commend the work of Combat Stress in Hollybush House in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), it is a voluntary charitable organisation that is taking up much of the strain that is sadly not being taken up by the psychiatric services offered to our troops on their return from combat.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is right to talk about the need for continuing support as people prepare to return from theatre and at the point at which they arrive. I had the great honour of meeting some of our soldiers as they returned from theatre in Afghanistan and they talked about the need for continued and ongoing support. That includes support not just with housing but with dental care and health care, including mental health treatment, both in-patient and out-patient. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the veterans Minister have considered this matter very carefully and if my hon. Friend has any specific suggestions about how the situation could be improved, I am sure that they will listen with great care.

Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State understand the contribution that is made to morale by the knowledge that outstanding medical services are available in Selly Oak hospital and, of course, at the rehabilitation centre at Headley Court? If he has not yet visited either the hospital or the rehabilitation centre, may I urge him to do so? He will see at first hand the courage of the patients and the skill of the staff.

Jim Murphy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right about the remarkable dedication of the staff, of which we have all heard. I have not yet had the honour of visiting; I do not know whether that was an invitation-it was an invitation by proxy, I think-but I would happily accept it. We all know by repute of the remarkable conviction of those men and women who care for our heroes on their return, which is why we have increased the investment in those medical facilities. We are determined to do more whenever we possibly can.

Ben Wallace: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Many veterans returning from active service suffer from mental problems and, unfortunately, some of them end up in custody. Recently, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence have started a process of identifying veterans in custody in England and Wales in order to ensure that they are matched with the appropriate support agency, such as the Royal British Legion and Combat Stress. Given that prisons are a devolved issue but defence and looking after veterans are not, will the Secretary of State seek to use his offices to ensure that the Scottish Government play their part in trying to ensure that our veterans in custody are looked after and given the support that they deserve?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman served with distinction in the armed forces, in the Scots Guards, so he will know that it is always important that we should look to see what more we can do. That is why we have specific programmes to help those ex-servicemen and women who are unemployed and it is also why we are developing Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Justice-specific programmes to help those who are coming out of prison. If there is a gap-I do not want to make that assertion-and if there are lessons to be learned north and south of the border, I will happily convene conversations and meetings between the Royal British Legion north and south of the border, ourselves and Scottish Government officials to ensure that we can learn lessons from one another and to ensure that those ex-service personnel who have unfortunately found themselves in prison get the proper support to which they are entitled.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the Secretary of State join me in commending the work of the Royal British Legion Scotland, the Army Benevolent Fund in Scotland, Poppyscotland and others for the work that they do in supporting those who have served our country in the armed forces? Those organisations bring to our attention time and again the fact that many ex-servicemen fall through the net in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State, using his offices as a clearing house for communications between the Governments here and in Edinburgh, see whether he can do more to ensure that that situation improves?

Jim Murphy: In the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I am happy to do whatever I can to assist. He is absolutely right about the work of the British Legion and of other charities across Scotland and the UK. There is enormous public affection in Scotland and across the UK, and immeasurable public respect, for our heroic men and women returning from this and previous wars, and public collections on Remembrance day continue to grow the further we get from the second world war. However, it is incumbent on us all to bear in mind that remembrance is not a one-day event, but an every-day-of-the-year event, and I am happy to see what can be done to take up his suggestion.

Alistair Carmichael: In that spirit, may I bring to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) will introduce a Bill later today to establish a veterans covenant similar to the military covenant for serving members of the armed forces? Will the Secretary of State undertake to argue the case in Government for my hon. Friend's Bill to be given time, so that a proposal on which there is a clear consensus can become law?

Jim Murphy: We will, of course, consider the detail of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. The sentiment behind the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is correct. This is about trying to find additional ways of supporting men and women returning from war, whether they are injured or have returned safe and well. It is not just about that, however; it is also about supporting the extended service families-the husbands of the women who serve, the wives and girlfriends of the men who serve, and their children-which is why we are looking at making commitments on matters such as the provision of housing, health and dental care, and support for children of those in the armed services with special educational needs. We are doing a huge amount, but I am sure that we could do more.

Angus Robertson: The Royal United Services Institute today said that there is likely to be a 20 per cent. cut in service personnel in the years ahead. That would mean fewer service personnel in Scotland than in the Irish Republic. Is that good for morale, given that there have been more than 10,000 defence job cuts in Scotland since Labour came to power and a defence underspend of more than £4.3 billion in recent years?

Jim Murphy: There are currently 12,000 members of, and 6,000 civilians working in, the armed forces in Scotland. I do not agree with today's assessment on the percentage reductions in the armed forces, but what is absolutely clear is that were the hon. Gentleman's party in power and were it to have its way and have Scotland separated from the United Kingdom, there would be a 100 per cent. cut in the armed forces, because there would be no Royal Navy, no Royal Air Force, no British Army and no shipbuilding for aircraft carriers on the Clyde. We have enormous respect for our armed forces, north and south of the border, and we laugh with contempt at his ludicrous arguments.

Cross-Border Transport

Jo Swinson: What recent discussions he has had with Scottish Executive Ministers on the resilience of cross-border transport links to extreme weather conditions.

Jim Murphy: The Department for Transport and the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, have been regularly monitoring salt supplies and stock levels across Great Britain with the help of agencies, local authorities and companies that supply salt. There has been very good co-operation across the UK.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. However, airport closures, train delays and hazardous driving conditions made it very difficult for Scots travelling to see friends and family over Christmas and returning to work in the new year. There is particular concern about salt supplies, with the Scottish Government saying that the stocks are steady and well managed, but local authorities crying that they do not have enough. Does he think that Scotland has learned the lessons well enough from England's big freeze last February?

Jim Murphy: Remarkable efforts have been made, again north and south of the border, by gritters, by all those involved in the emergency services and home help, and others to keep Scotland moving, and largely that has met with some success. However, there are lessons to learn. Some local authorities have not had enough supplies, and early in the deep freeze, there was not enough co-ordination or co-operation. We can learn lessons from what has happened during this cold spell in Scotland.

Gordon Banks: On the issue of extreme weather, may I offer my thanks to the Government for the introduction of a new weather monitoring station for cold weather payments in Strathallan in my constituency? Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State urge on his ministerial colleagues the need for even more local monitoring stations so that those payments can be made appropriately to the people who need them?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend raises an important point about the improvements that we have made to monitoring stations. I can confirm to the House that in Scotland cold weather payments have accounted for £39 million of additional support across Scotland, helping 400,000 Scots who otherwise would find it difficult to heat their homes and cook their food during the deep freeze experienced there.

Tom Harris: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the staff of cross-border rail services, particularly on the west coast main line, who kept the trains running even when every other form of transport had ground to a halt and who managed to provide information and care to passengers whose journeys were inevitably delayed?

Jim Murphy: I visited my hon. Friend's constituency over the weekend to see how local people were coping with the deep freeze. As a former transport Minister, he has enormous experience of rail services. He also has a detailed knowledge of the huge efforts made to keep the west coast main line fully operational and on time. Difficulties were experienced in other parts of Scotland-train services between Glasgow and Edinburgh were disrupted, as were many other services, but remarkable efforts were made to keep that line open. I pay tribute to the way in which the company workers stayed longer and worked harder to maintain the tracks, making a huge commitment to keep Scotland moving.

Employment (Ayrshire)

Brian H Donohoe: When he next expects to visit Ayrshire to discuss levels of employment in the area.

Ann McKechin: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I visited a number of organisations in Ayrshire last week, including the coalfield community transport initiative, where I met people who are now in work thanks to the future jobs fund.

Brian H Donohoe: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has made time to come to Ayrshire. However, she may not recall that in 1997 one of her predecessors, Brian Wilson, the Minister at the time, set up a taskforce because of high unemployment in the Prestwick area. The taskforce has proved to be highly successful. I wonder whether she can arrange a meeting between herself and Ayrshire Members of Parliament, along with Scottish Executive Ministers.

Ann McKechin: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Following the national jobs summit, which was successfully held in Glasgow on Monday and at which more than 120 delegates were present, I can confirm that I shall be pleased to hold a similar, local summit in the Ayrshire area. I am also pleased to note the good work that has been done by local authorities and the voluntary sector in Ayrshire. To date, that work has created almost 500 jobs, from the future jobs fund, for young unemployed people. That is a magnificent contribution to overcoming the problem affecting every community in Scotland.

David Mundell: I am sure that the Minister's summit will be welcome, but in Ayrshire alone a further 3,419 people have been forced on to the dole in the past 12 months. Can the Minister tell all those people, as well as the hundreds of thousands of other jobseekers in Scotland, where exactly they will find the signs that Scotland is coming out of recession that the Secretary of State claimed were there on Monday? He claims that those signs exist, but is it not the case that the evidence in Ayrshire and elsewhere in Scotland simply does not back him up?

Ann McKechin: There are clear indications from a number of independent experts that we are moving out of the recession, but we are certainly not complacent. We are well aware that there are hot spots of unemployment-in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire-but unlike in the 1980s and 1990s, when the hon. Gentleman's Government ignored those areas, we are determined to protect the most vulnerable. That is why we are investing £1.2 billion throughout the United Kingdom to help young people into work. It is also why we have changed the young person's guarantee, from 10 months to six months, so that we can get young people into paid work at the earliest moment, providing them with the opportunities to become well placed to get into the job market.

David Mundell: The Minister and the Secretary of State are good at talking the language of the 1980s, but sadly not so good at dealing with the issues of the present. On the very day that the Secretary of State claimed that there were signs that Scotland was emerging from the recession, the latest purchasing managers index showed that manufacturing was still contracting and that the flow of new orders in Scotland was considerably weaker than elsewhere in the UK. The Minister and the Secretary of State refer to the future jobs fund, which has brought some benefits, but is it not the case that the fund is increasingly focused on public sector employment, rather than on our hard-pressed private sector? So other than warm words-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we have got it.

Ann McKechin: Today there are 250,000 more people in work in Scotland than in 1997. That shows the credit of our policies, under which we do not allow people to be left behind. We are strongly committed to maintaining our support for the most vulnerable in our community. That is why the future jobs fund will be creating 15,000 jobs in Scotland and why we have managed to assist thousands of people in the past year in getting back into work if they have faced the prospect of redundancy. We are certainly not complacent, unlike the previous Government, as their record shows.

Scottish Culture

Andrew Pelling: If he will hold discussions with ministerial colleagues to develop policy on promotion of Scottish culture throughout the UK.

Jim Murphy: Scotland's culture is known throughout the UK and beyond. There are now more Burns suppers in England than in Scotland. As a fiercely patriotic Scot, I take every opportunity to promote Scottish culture with my ministerial colleagues.

Andrew Pelling: The Secretary of State is an excellent representative for Scotland. Would cultural interchange be further encouraged by promoting the good idea of having both Celtic and Glasgow Rangers playing in the English leagues?

Jim Murphy: I would have to declare an interest before responding to that question, as I am a part-time follower of one of those teams. I will leave it to the House to guess which one. Of course, that is a decision for the football authorities and the football clubs. What would enhance cross-border cultural exchange is a return of the Scotland versus England friendly football matches. I think that the home internationals will return shortly, with Ireland replacing England, and that there is now a commitment to a return of the Scotland versus England football matches. I have spoken to the Scottish Football Association about that. There was an agreement to have such an arrangement in 2008, but Scotland withdrew from it. Having grown up around memories of the Wembley Wizards of 1928 and 1967, Kenny Dalglish's great goals at Wembley and occasional England victories at Hampden, I think that it would be a remarkable sporting event and a highlight in the football calendar, so I say, "Bring it on."

Anne McGuire: Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that the BBC Trust will respond positively to the current consultation about putting MG ALBA, the Gaelic television station, on to Freeview? That would allow the benefits of that station to be appreciated and its quality output to be seen by a wider audience not only in Scotland, but across the UK.

Jim Murphy: Despite the comments of all the doomsayers and those who are culturally ignorant, MG ALBA is a fantastic success, which has exceeded its ambitions regarding its share of audience. It is a young and growing medium that deserves and is entitled to our continued support. If it were available to a wider group of viewers across the UK, on different platforms, that would be a real boon. I will do everything I can to make that happen, but the BBC Trust certainly has a responsibility to help to make it happen.

James McGovern: The Secretary of State has spent a great deal of time in my constituency, and I am grateful for that. Is he aware of the proposal to locate an offshoot of the Victoria and Albert Museum in Dundee, and will he join me in supporting that venture? Will he agree to meet me to see how Westminster can help us to locate the V and A in Dundee?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for Dundee. He pestered the Government until we agreed to give additional money for the games industry at the university of Abertay, and it is his victory that that money is in place.
	The V and A proposal is a devolved issue, but I believe that there is a need for about £15 million of Scottish Government investment, and I urge them to find the money for that fantastic project, so that people across the world have additional reasons to visit the great city of Dundee.

Cross-Border Transport

John Barrett: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the economic benefits to Scotland of proposed high-speed cross-border rail links.
	The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Jim Murphy): I met the Secretary of State for Transport to discuss the high-speed rail link on 5 November, when he visited Glasgow, North-East.

John Barrett: There is now growing agreement in all parties that the high-speed rail network must serve central Scotland. Does the Secretary of State agree that both Edinburgh and Glasgow must be on that network and that both those cities should work together to that end?

Jim Murphy: The high-speed rail network could be an enormous investment and make enormous improvements to our infrastructure across the country. Initially, it will run from London to the midlands, but there is a commitment from the Government to try to go further. If we can get that rail link to Scotland, it is important that it should serve two of Scotland's great cities, Glasgow and Edinburgh, and there is a commitment to help to make that happen. We are determined to make that investment, working with the company.

Mark Lazarowicz: As well as providing faster rail services from Scotland to London, the high-speed rail network will also offer the opportunity to have faster direct and indirect services to the continent of Europe. Will the Secretary of State do what he can to ensure that opportunities for travel not just to London, but to the continent, are also maximised in the plans for the high-speed rail network when it is developed north of London?

Jim Murphy: As I said before, initially, the commitment is to a service from London to the midlands and then to go beyond that to Scotland into Glasgow and Edinburgh. It is important to make that investment in those hundreds of miles of rail track to help to make it happen. Such transport connections between Glasgow and London are crucial, which is why it is important that the Scottish Government should reinstate the Glasgow airport link-just those seven miles from Glasgow city centre to Glasgow airport. I find it ridiculous that people can go to Glasgow, Central station and get a train to Manchester airport, but not to Glasgow airport.

New Deal

Willie Rennie: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the operation in Scotland of the payment for results system for the New Deal.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend is in regular contact with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on a range of issues.

Willie Rennie: New deal training organisations face the prospect of their income plummeting because they only receive full payment when their clients find a job. In the current climate, when it is harder to find jobs, their income has already plummeted, threatening the services offered. Will the Minister investigate the implementation of the flexibility that the Department for Work and Pensions promised, because in the current climate it is simply not working?

Ann McKechin: I am happy to take up any particular concerns that the hon. Gentleman may wish to bring to my attention, but I can assure him that we are keeping the flexible new deal under review. The whole point of it is to move people into sustainable, long-term and permanent employment, which is why we think that it is important that a payment-by-results scheme is appropriate.

Fuel Poverty

Danny Alexander: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive on steps to assist households in Scotland in severe fuel poverty which are not connected to the mains gas grid.

Ann McKechin: My right hon. Friend and I have had no discussions with the Scottish Executive.

Danny Alexander: May I urge the Minister to rectify that? If people use heating oil to heat their homes, their fuel is likely to be more expensive so it costs more to pay the bills. Those people are more likely to be in fuel poverty and at the end of the queue to apply for measures to help insulate the home. Is not one of the lessons of this cold spell that help should be directed at the homes that need it most, which means that people who use heating oil should be at the front of the queue, and not at the back of it? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber, which is very discourteous both to the Member asking the question and to the Minister answering it.

Ann McKechin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	This Government have done more than any other in recent history to do more about fuel poverty. In 2007 alone, the winter fuel payment took 200,000 households throughout the UK out of fuel poverty, and we are determined to tackle the problem even further through the new Energy Bill and take a further 100,000 pensioner households in Scotland out of poverty. We are certainly not complacent, although we see no irregularity in the non-oil-gas and electric-fuel market, which might otherwise cause us to consider regulation at this point. However, we will certainly keep these issues under review.

Michael Weir: The Scottish house conditions survey shows that those who do not have access to mains gas are twice as likely to be in fuel poverty as those who do have such access. The Secretary of State mentioned earlier the importance of cold weather payments. Given the current situation, will the Minister press her ministerial colleagues to extend and increase those payments to other vulnerable groups?

Ann McKechin: The cold weather payments are triggered by the temperature and Scotland has, of course, benefited more than other parts of the UK because of its geographical location. It is this Government who increased the cold weather payment in September 2008 from £8.25 a week to £25 a week-an increase of over 300 per cent.-so I certainly do not think that there has been any complacency on the Government's part.

Youth Unemployment

John Robertson: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of policies to reduce the level of youth unemployment in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: We are determined to help those of all ages who are out of work to get back into work. Since 1997, we have seen the number of 18 to 24-year-olds in Scotland claiming unemployment benefits for six months or more halved.

John Robertson: I thank my right hon. Friend and congratulate him on his answer. Is he as concerned as I am at the possibility that, because of the Scottish Executive's proposal to change the rules for the payment of education maintenance allowance, 7,000 young people will end up on the dole, as they will not receive their £10 or £20, given the new threshold of £30? Is that not a disgrace? What can my right hon. Friend do to help these young people?

Jim Murphy: Many parents and grandparents across Scotland are worried about what their children and grandchildren will be doing when they leave school or university this year. We all have a responsibility to see what more we can do. My worry is that the Scottish National party Edinburgh Government seem to spend so much time trying to get Scotland out of Britain that they spend so little time trying to get Scotland out of the recession.

Employment

John Howell: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on measures to promote employment in Scotland.

Jim Murphy: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about employment in Scotland, and I co-hosted Scotland's first ever jobs summit on Monday this week in Glasgow.

John Howell: What assurances can the Minister give about the quality and permanence of the jobs that he claims to be creating for young people in Scotland?

Jim Murphy: First, there is a guarantee that those jobs are better than being on the dole-the option that the hon. Gentleman's party took throughout the 1980s when in government; and there are a quarter of a million more people in work throughout Scotland now than there were when we came to power. But of course, the genuine point behind the hon. Gentleman's question is about guaranteeing that those young people get meaningful employment, that the job turns into a career and that such people, when they themselves have children, have the finance and self-dependency to provide for them. We are determined to do all that we can.

Jim Sheridan: Despite the best efforts to promote employment in Scotland, my constituents and constituents in Glasgow will be severely hampered by the decision of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport to withdraw the Renfrew ferry. It has done so because it does not have any funding from the Scottish Government. Will my hon. Friend raise the matter with Scottish Government Ministers in order to reinstate the ferry service?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is always on the case, defending his constituency and promoting employment there. If the Renfrew ferry is another transport project that the SNP Edinburgh Government have cancelled in the west of Scotland, many people in the area will believe that the SNP just does not understand that part of our country.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked-

Engagements

Bill Wiggin: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 January.

Gordon Brown: Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Captain Daniel Read, from 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps. He died in Afghanistan on Monday, undertaking the dangerous work of protecting his fellow soldiers and civilians from explosive devices. The courage and selflessness of this work is truly breathtaking. His sacrifice will not be forgotten, and we send our sincere condolences to his family and friends.
	I know that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute also to Rupert Hamer, who lost his life in Afghanistan while reporting from the front line, and to his colleague, who was injured. Our thoughts are also with their families, friends and colleagues. We are grateful to all those who put themselves in danger to ensure that the world is aware of the bravery of those serving in Afghanistan and the realities of life there.
	Because of the devastating earthquake overnight, Haiti has moved to the centre of the world's thoughts and the world's compassion. The Government will respond with emergency aid, including firefighters, emergency equipment and finance, and give further support to help the people of Haiti to recover from that devastating event.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Bill Wiggin: I am sure that the whole House will agree with the Prime Minister's statement of condolence.
	Looking back, our economy entered the recession with one of the largest budget deficits of any first world economy. On reflection, does the Prime Minister regret that?

Gordon Brown: No, we had one of the lowest debts-the second-lowest debt-in the G7. Our debt was lower than that of America, lower than that of France and of Germany, lower than that of the euro area and lower than that of Japan and of Italy. It is because we had a low debt that we have been able to take the measures that are necessary to help companies to deal with the recession, to help the unemployed get work, to help young people who are leaving school and to help thousands of small businesses survive. We took the right action in the recession; the Opposition advised the wrong action.

Richard Burden: May I associate myself with the tribute that my right hon. Friend has paid to those who have lost their lives in Afghanistan?
	Is my right hon. Friend aware that today marks the sixth anniversary of the death of Tom Hurndall, the British photographer who was shot by an Israeli sniper while trying to rescue children from danger in Gaza? Will he join me in paying tribute to the Hurndall family for their tireless efforts in cutting through so many smokescreens put forward by the Israeli military authorities, to get to the truth about Tom's death and uphold the principles of accountability? Will he agree that as an international community we have no less responsibility to uphold the principle of accountability for the 352 Palestinian children, whose names we will never know, who died last year-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we have got the drift.

Gordon Brown: The situation in Gaza is serious. As I said last week, the only way forward and the only solution is a peace settlement between an Israel that needs security within its borders and a Palestine that needs to be a viable economic state. I have repeatedly urged the Israeli Government to improve access for humanitarian aid and workers. In addition to what I said last week, I should say that we have already spent more than £20 million on meeting urgent aid needs in Gaza. The Secretary of State for International Development announced a total package of £53 million for Palestine on 28 December, and that was with a particular focus on Gaza. We will meet the humanitarian needs of the Gaza people where we can. Access is important, but everybody knows that it is a political settlement that we need in that area.

David Cameron: May I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Captain Daniel Read from the Royal Logistic Corps, who died in Afghanistan serving our country? As the Prime Minister said, the work of bomb disposal experts is truly inspiring when we hear what they do to protect their comrades.
	I also join the Prime Minister in sending our sincere condolences to the friends and family of Rupert Hamer. He and photographer Phil Coburn remind us of the bravery and professionalism of journalists who also put their lives at risk to ensure that they report on the work of our armed services overseas.
	Finally, of course, I associate myself totally with the Prime Minister's words about the terrible events in Haiti, and send my support to those involved in the humanitarian effort. Obviously, we look forward to a full statement in the House by the Secretary of State for International Development when appropriate.
	The whole country will wish to praise the work of the emergency services and how they have dealt with the unexpected long spell of cold weather. We have all seen and heard incredible stories about neighbour helping neighbour. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that everything that can be done is being done to ensure that we have sufficient supplies of salt and that it is being properly distributed so that we can keep our country moving at this time?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to tell the country the most updated situation on the transport network and the protection of our roads by salt. Virtually all main transport networks have remained operational throughout the period. For the work of our highway and other maintenance workers, and to those who are running the emergency services and the thousands of people who are volunteering-I pay tribute to organisations in areas around the country-the country remains deeply grateful. It shows that when there are difficulties, the country comes together as one to meet them.
	Five airports in the south and midlands have been and will remain closed for a period this morning, but I believe that they will open later today. We are working with the Highways Agency, the devolved Administrations and representative local government to manage salt supplies. It is important that every road remains safe. It is also important that we have sustainable supplies of salt for what is the longest and worst period of bad weather for 30 years in this country.
	As for salt, one of the salt producers has announced this morning that it will produce additional salt. We expect imports of salt in the next few days as a result of arrangements entered into weeks ago, and we are confident that, with the measures announced yesterday by the Transport Secretary, we will be able to maintain the road network. We are working closely with local authorities, and I hope that people will continue to be able to work together for the common good. It does prove that Britain works best when Britain works together.

David Cameron: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that answer. The pressure on supplies and the steps taken to ration salt in the last week clearly show that lessons can be learned for the future. Can he tell us what steps he will take to hold a review and to involve those in local government, to ensure that we learn those lessons?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that each time we have a winter weather problem we should learn lessons from it. Last winter, we set up the UK Roads Liaison Group, and it made three recommendations that we implemented-for local authorities to hold a six-day salt supply, for the Highways Agency to have a bigger reserve and for transport workers to be allowed to work longer hours to deliver the salt. It also recommended the creation of a Salt Cell to ensure a fair distribution of salt throughout the country. We will review all those arrangements after this winter period, but at the beginning of this difficult spell, the Highways Agency had 13 days of supplies, and we are now building on that with orders from abroad and additional production from UK mines. We are doing everything that we can, and the Department for Transport has made every effort to consult all local authorities.

Dari Taylor: My right hon. Friend will know that today in Great Britain 80,000 children are living in care, 80 per cent. of whom will live in care until they are 16, not in a loving, stable family home. Is it not time that this House considered the lives of looked-after children again and considered that if a child is not living in a stable, loving home in the first 18 months of their life, adoption and long-term fostering must be their right in order to enter a loving, stable home?

Gordon Brown: This is a real challenge not only for all local authorities, but for all people. We must not only pay attention to the number of children in care, but make sure that those children have the chances that every other child has for educational attainment, for jobs and for stability in their lives as they leave care. In 2007, we published the White Paper "Care Matters" and we set out to transform the prospects of children and young people in care. We have made some progress with placement stability, there has been an increase in educational attainment and we have better outcomes for care leavers, but at the same time we must move faster to close the gap. That is why it is important to recognise that public expenditure has been necessary in this and it has doubled since 2000 on the needs of children in care. That is what we have tried to do to help those children.

Nicholas Clegg: I want to add my own expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Captain Daniel Read from the Royal Logistic Corps, who tragically lost his life serving in Afghanistan on Monday. I also want to add my expressions of sympathy and condolence to the family and friends of Rupert Hamer, the distinguished defence editor of the  Sunday Mirror who died in an explosion on Saturday, and of course to the family and friends of his injured colleague, Philip Coburn.
	As the Prime Minister said, as news is coming in of the terrible earthquake in Haiti, all our hearts go out to the many, many people who will be so terribly affected by that natural disaster. I am grateful for what he said about the Government's humanitarian response.
	Given everything that has come to light in the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war, will the Prime Minister now do the decent thing and volunteer to give evidence to the inquiry before people decide how to vote on his record in government?

Gordon Brown: The Chilcot inquiry has drawn up a list of those people that it wishes to interview and has invited the people on the dates that it has done. I will follow the recommendations of the Chilcot committee. I have nothing to hide on this matter and I am happy to give evidence. Equally, at this time, I thought that the outcome of the debate in the House was that the Chilcot inquiry should decide when people were heard.

Nicholas Clegg: The point is that this is not just a question for Sir John Chilcot; it is a question for the Prime Minister's own conscience. When the decisions were taken to launch this illegal war, he was not only in the room-he was the one who signed the cheques. He should insist on going to the inquiry now. People are entitled to know before they decide how to vote at the general election what his role was in this Government's most disastrous decision. What has he got to hide?

Gordon Brown: Nothing, and the right hon. Gentleman was the one who wanted Chilcot to make the decisions about whom he called. He cannot on one day say that Chilcot should decide and then say that he or someone else should decide what happens.
	On the Iraq war, we have given every single document to the Iraq inquiry. We have given it the opportunity to look at every document and to ask for which documents it wants to be declassified. The only documents that will be withheld from publication are those that directly affect national security and international relations. This is a full inquiry being run by Sir John Chilcot. People are being interviewed, rightly so, and asked for their evidence, but it is for the Chilcot committee to decide how it proceeds-that is what the right hon. Gentleman proposed.

Early Intervention

Graham Allen: What discussions he has had with hon. Members on an all-party approach to early intervention since 9 December 2009.

Gordon Brown: I have visited my hon. Friend's constituency to look at early intervention programmes, and I am very happy that cross-party discussions on these matters take place. Everybody knows the importance of early intervention to help young children.

Graham Allen: There are also tremendous economic consequences of early intervention, and early intervention bonds, social impact equities and many other financial instruments raise money from the capital markets rather than from the taxpayer. Will the Prime Minister please encourage the Treasury to look at these imaginative and creative ways of raising money, so that we not only help individuals but find a long-term way of writing down the national debt, thereby reducing the burden on UK taxpayers?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of social impact bonds. They are being looked at by the Justice Secretary at the moment. If the first 48 months of a child's life are more important than the next years because of what is learned or not learned, we have to do more to help children under five. That is why we introduced Sure Start and the child tax credit, and doubled the credit for children in their earliest years. It is also why we have given maternity and paternity leave. All these are important ways in which we can help young children in their earliest years, and I believe that there should be a cross-party consensus on keeping them; I hope that there will be.

Gary Streeter: Given that the Home Affairs Select Committee heard powerful evidence yesterday that one of the primary causes of crime is poor parenting and dysfunctional families, what more can this Government do to bring forward effective policies on early intervention to ensure that fewer children stumble on to the conveyor belt of crime?

Gordon Brown: If I may do so, I refer to the proposal that we are putting forward and the family intervention programmes that I saw in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). Let us be honest: there are about 50,000 families in this country that lead such chaotic lives that we need to intervene and turn them round. We need to make a contract with them that a no-nonsense approach will be adopted by them and by us. That is what lies behind the family intervention programme. We are investing heavily in that, and in the parenting tuition that is necessary as part of it. I hope that the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) will agree that that is a way forward. That is a better expenditure of money to help the children he wants to help than a return to the married couples allowance.

Engagements

Gordon Marsden: In the past 12 months, people in Blackpool have turned out in unprecedented numbers for Remembrance day and Armed Forces day ceremonies and to give a civic welcome to troops returning from Afghanistan. Blackpool has done that because people recognise the sacrifice being made by those who risk their lives daily. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will continue their resolute action against any extremist group, wherever it comes from, that seeks to disrupt and dishonour that support?

Gordon Brown: I praise Blackpool for hosting the first Armed Forces Veterans day. I know that Blackpool has lost soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and my hon. Friend is right to say that we must commemorate all those who have served and made sacrifices for our country. I share his views on extremists who use freedom of speech in our country to foster division and incite hatred and, in some cases, to incite people to kill. We have already strengthened our powers to allow us to prosecute them, and an organisation was proscribed yesterday as a result of our determination to do what is absolutely necessary through the legal process. This is also about standing up for our shared values and showing young people in Muslim communities in particular that we stand for values of justice, dignity and fairness. I believe that our Prevent strategy, which involves talking to people in their schools, churches, faith groups and mosques, is an important way of building inter-religious consensus and a belief that we can solve all our problems together.

David Cameron: After the events of last week, the Prime Minister told his colleagues that he would change the way he governs. Can he tell us how he will be different?

Gordon Brown: I think that I should start by saying that the right hon. Gentleman looks very different from the poster that we see out there. If you cannot get your photograph right, it is pretty difficult to get your policies right as well. Last week, we announced plans for digital Britain, plans to improve education in our community, and plans for 70,000 jobs in offshore power. We also announced our new growth strategy. This is the Government who are moving forward with policy. He can have his posters; we will have the policies.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister asks about pictures. Why don't we do a bit of market research? When it comes to Labour Members' election addresses, hands up who is going to put the Prime Minister's picture on the front. Come on, hands up.  [Interruption.] Four! There are six of them who do not want him in the Cabinet, and just four who are going to put his picture on their election addresses. He has been airbrushed out of the whole campaign.
	Let us see if the Prime Minister has changed. Let us see if he is prepared to do something that he has never done before-listen to people, and admit his mistakes. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) asked a very straight question. When Britain went into recession with one of the largest deficits in the industrialised world, that was because this Prime Minister thought he had abolished boom and bust. That claim was wrong, wasn't it?

Gordon Brown: As I keep telling the right hon. Gentleman, we went into the recession with one of the lowest debts in the G7, and the reason we had one of the lowest debts in the G7 is that we had taken action over the previous years to run down the debt that had been run up by the Conservative Government.
	I think the country would prefer our policies to a person who has three policies on one day. The right hon. Gentleman needs three television election debates because he has three versions of the same policy to put forward in the debates.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister talks about his policies. We now know what his own election co-ordinator thinks of his policies-yes, the Development Secretary. I do not know whether he is the chairman of the campaign or the co-ordinator of the campaign: the Prime Minister has three people co-ordinating his campaign.
	This is what the Development Secretary said. He said that Labour
	"don't... have any policies. For God's sake, Harriet's helping write the manifesto!"
	I must say that I think that is completely unfair. After all, the deputy leader of the Labour party took only five hours and 32 minutes to come out and support the Prime Minister, whereas the Secretary of State for International Development took six hours. [Hon. Members: "Question!"] All right, here comes a question. Let us try something else to see if this Prime Minister has changed. Will he now admit the truth about spending cuts? He has stood there week after week and denied what everyone knows to be true: that there will be spending cuts. The Chancellor now says that those cuts will be the deepest for 20 years. Will the Prime Minister repeat those words?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is becoming even redder-much redder than he is in his photograph on the poster. I have to say that what you see is clearly not what you get.
	I have to say this to the right hon. Gentleman as well. I wish that he could talk about policy. We are coming out of the most difficult recession that countries have faced. Every country around the world is facing the difficult public spending decisions that the Chancellor talked about last week. I agree exactly with what he said: that every country has got to face up to it. But there is one way of facing it up to it, and that is publishing our deficit reduction plan, and another way: the right hon. Gentleman's not knowing what he wants to do on the married couples allowance, not knowing what he wants to do on national insurance, and not knowing what he wants to do on the top rate of tax. He is asking people for a don't know at the election rather than a yes or a no; and the only policy he has that is not going to change is his policy on inheritance tax, which helps the richest persons in our society.

David Cameron: If the Prime Minister wants to know how people are going to vote, why does he not find some courage for once and call the election?
	The Prime Minister talks about policy. The country is fed up with his policies, but his colleagues were not complaining about the policies; they were complaining about the weakness, the dithering and the backbiting. That is what they were complaining about.
	Everyone can see that the Prime Minister will not change the way in which he governs. Everyone can see that he will not answer the question, and that he will not be straight with people. Is not the conclusion of the last week that the Cabinet and the Labour party are too disloyal to support him, but too incompetent to remove him? Should he not ask for the verdict of the British people, so that we can get rid of the lot of them?

Gordon Brown: I must say that the right hon. Gentleman's airbrushed poster had better lines on it than the lines that he is delivering today. He should get better lines from the shadow Foreign- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be heard.

Gordon Brown: This is what the Leader of the Opposition said only a few days ago:
	"I messed up and there is no other way of putting it, you know; I was thinking about all sorts of different things and I misdescribed our policy."
	He has misdescribed what he is doing, because we know that on the health service there is no guarantee for cancer patients; we know on police that there is no guarantee about neighbourhood policing; we know on education that there is no guarantee of education to 18; and we know on the recession that the Conservatives would have done nothing to take us out of the recession and that they would have gone back to the policies of the 1980s. When he finally wakes up to the fact that policies matter more than posters, he will know that his policies are actually those of the '80s, not those for 2010.

Gordon Prentice: Will the Government back my amendment to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill next week that will rid Parliament of parasitic non-doms?

Gordon Brown: We will look at that amendment, and we will bring our view to the House at the right time.

David Heath: We have heard why, however implausibly, the Prime Minister will not give evidence to the Chilcot inquiry before the general election, but may I ask him a question that he can answer right now, because I am simply asking for his opinion? Alastair Campbell made it clear yesterday that this Prime Minister was intrinsically involved in all the decision making in the run-up to Iraq, so does he personally regret any of the decisions taken in the preparations for, and conduct of, the war in Iraq? Is he personally sorry?

Gordon Brown: I have already said that the reconstruction that was done after the war effort in Iraq was insufficient; the general view held by many people who have looked into this is that insufficient preparations were made for that. But I was part of the Cabinet that made the decisions on Iraq, and I stand by the decisions we made.

Lynne Jones: This week, a Member of the House has resigned, with mental illness being a factor. I make no comment about individual cases, but as the law stands any Member of this House who suffers a bout of serious mental illness can be automatically disqualified from office, no matter what the prospects of recovery. That is wrong, and it would never be tolerated for a physical illness, no matter how debilitating. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity presented by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill to implement the Speaker's Conference recommendation that this wrong should be righted?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has raised a very important issue. The Justice Secretary and the Health Secretary are giving careful consideration to the appropriate way forward, and I understand that we will also respond in due course to the recommendation to the Speaker's Conference report that was published on Monday.

Mark Pritchard: The first duty of any Government is to keep our nation safe. Given the tens of thousands of abuses of tourist visas, work visas and other visas, how confident is the Prime Minister that he has a firm grip on this nation's national security?

Gordon Brown: At every point we try to be as vigilant as possible in the way we run the services that are necessary for our national security. Immediately after the Detroit attempted bomb on Christmas day, it was for us also to make sure that our security arrangements for people coming into the country were satisfactory, and I ordered a review of those arrangements, as I told the House last week. Equally, we also decided that the co-ordination of our different services is an important issue, and, facing new technology and new methods being used by terrorist groups, we had to do more to ensure the full co-ordination of all our services to deal with potential incidents. That is another set of work that has been put in motion. So at all times we seek to be vigilant. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the introduction of biometric visas and then of the e-Borders system will be of great benefit to us in being able to identify people coming into and going out of the country, and I hope there will be all-party support for that.

Alun Michael: Employment in the public sector is very important to the economy of Wales, and cuts in the short term would impede the recovery of the private sector. Has my right hon. Friend made an assessment of the difference between the impact of the tough but long-term approach he is taking and of the precipitate, immediate and unplanned cuts that are demanded by the Leader of the Opposition?

Gordon Brown: I can say from the work that has been done that if we had pursued the same policies as in the 1980s and the 1990s, 1.7 million fewer people would be employed today. It is because we took action to help young people into work and to help small businesses that the unemployment claimant count, which was 10 per cent. or higher in some of the recessions of '80s and '90s, has remained half that today, and we are determined to do still more to help young people into work and those adults who are looking for work. The difference is this: when it came to the recession, other parties were prepared to walk by on the other side, but we decided to act.

Andrew Murrison: What is the Prime Minister's attitude to the current situation in the western Sahara?

Gordon Brown: I am thinking of all the issues that the hon. Gentleman wishes me to talk about in relation to the western Sahara. The one thing that I have been worried about is the growth of ethnic violence in these areas. The one thing that we have tried to do is increase-indeed, double-our aid to these areas, and the one thing that we have been worried about is the growth of terrorist groups in these areas. That is why we are taking the action that is necessary to dissuade people from terrorism. I have had numerous conversations with leaders in these areas. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to direct me to a specific point, I will take it up.

Andrew MacKinlay: Does the Prime Minister recall in September 2008 acclaiming the success of the 16 Air Assault Brigade and 2,000 British soldiers in delivering to the Kajaki dam a turbine? Will he tell the House why that turbine, which cost lives, has not been installed? Who makes these important military so-called strategic decisions? The turbine was delivered at a high price and has not been installed-

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have got the thrust of it.

Gordon Brown: I have investigated the issue. Rightly, it is asked of us why the turbine is not working, when it was delivered at great cost in terms of lives and effort. Other sources of power have been found for the areas that were supposed to be served, but it is still our intention that that turbine be used to create the power that is necessary for the economic advance that is possible.

Bob Spink: Essex teenage tearaways are being sent to a sensitive residential area in Castle Point by Essex county council without any consultation whatsoever. They are terrorising residents, elderly frail people and businesses with extreme bad behaviour. Does the Prime Minister agree that people should always be properly consulted, and that the location of those establishments should be sensitively and carefully considered? Essex county council should be ashamed of putting it-

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have got the thrust of it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Gordon Brown: No one should be expected to suffer from antisocial behaviour. That is why we have created neighbourhood policing units that have a responsibility for dealing with antisocial behaviour as well as with crime. It is also why we are targeting families such as those that the hon. Gentleman mentions, whose lives are so chaotic that they are disrupting the lives of people around them. No pensioner, in particular, should be expected to suffer from that. That is why next month we will be announcing new measures to help people who are victims of antisocial behaviour, so that we can get quick action to them as well as deal with the problems at source. I hope the hon. Gentleman can be assured that we are taking the action that is necessary, but recognise that this is a problem for many people in the country.

Charlotte Atkins: Today's stunning results in the schools in Staffordshire, Moorlands demonstrate 10 years of remarkable achievement and a decade of investment in dilapidated schools transforming them into modern learning centres for the whole community. Why is it- [Interruption.]-that the hardworking students and the efforts of school staff, head teachers and governors are constantly talked down by the Opposition?

Gordon Brown: They can try and shout down good news but we will tell people. Ten or 12 years ago there were 1,600 underperforming schools in our country when we came to power. Today the figure announced is fewer than 250. This a huge change that is being met by the national educational challenge. We should continue to ensure that by 2011 there is not one underperforming school in our country. We ought to offer the best education to every child. Even if Conservative Members sneer, we will continue to finance the education of every young person in this country.

Christopher Chope: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for playing extra time. May I ask the Prime Minister what he is doing to prevent the population of this country from reaching 70 million?

Gordon Brown: We have introduced the points system for immigration. The points system is working because where we need no unskilled workers and need workers who have specialist skills but not other workers with skills, they will not now be invited into the country. Of course, when people come into the country, they must have a contribution to make to this country. The points system is ensuring that net migration is falling. It is also ensuring that where we do not need workers to come into the country, they do not come in.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quickly and quietly.

Withers LLP (Privilege)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has drawn my attention to an e-mail he received from Withers LLP, a firm of solicitors, which could in his view amount to a contempt of the House by seeking to intimidate a Member in his parliamentary conduct.
	I have decided that this is a matter to which I should allow precedence. Therefore, under the rules set out at pages 167 to 168 of "Erskine May", the hon. Gentleman may table a motion for debate at the commencement of public business tomorrow. It will appear on the Order Paper after any statements and before the topical debate on Afghanistan.
	I shall arrange for the text of the e-mail to be published in the  Official Report.
	 Following is the text of the e-mail:
	 [ Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 5:51 PM
	 Subject: Private and Confidential
	 Dear Mr Hemming
	 Thank you for your various e-mails yesterday. My client's response to the points which  y ou have raised in these and earlier correspondence is as follows.
	 1. The original leaflet and offending text
	 It is abundantly clear that the offending text referred to, and would have been understood by those reading it to refer to, our client. You have alleged that the  c ompulsory purchase order (CPO) proceedings involve other parties. However, it is clear from Councillor David Osborne's evidence given to the public inquiry on 14 July 2009 that he was not aware of any other parties who owned plots or who were objecting to Tesco's proposals and presenting alternative proposals other than our client. Asda and Sainsburys had already sold their land to Tesco. It is clear from the context of the offending text that you were only referring to plots of land which are part of the CPO and only the plots owned by our client. Even though he was not specifically named, he was clearly identifiable to the thousands of people to whom you distributed your defamatory and maliciously false leaflet.
	 You were clearly wrong to say that our client purchased his plots with the intention of delaying the Tesco development, as you now admit. Moreover, we do not agree that a landowner objecting to a CPO of his land and who has made very serious alternative proposals for redevelopment can he be guilty of "spoiling tactics" and this defamatory and maliciously false allegation is strongly objected to by our client.
	 In order to settle this matter we, therefore, require an apology in respect of both the serious allegations plus payment of our client's costs, a substantial payment to a charity of his choice and an undertaking not to repeat the allegations or any similar allegations, particularly in Parliament.
	 Your threat to make a statement in the House of Commons referring to our client's alleged "spoiling tactics" in this and other situations and that our client's threatened proceedings amount to "bullying and an attempt to gag opponents" is tantamount to blackmail. These allegations are untrue as our client is only trying to put right a serious wrong to his reputation. We note that you would only make these allegations under the cover of parliamentary privilege. My client objects very strongly to you doing this and would ensure, via other sources, that the House of Commons were fully appraised of the true situation and not misled.
	 We deny that our client has been involved in any "spoiling tactics" at the Swan, Maypole or in Worcester. He certainly does not have, as you claim, a track record of "spoiling tactics". By making such allegations you are clearly aggravating the damages which you will now have to pay to a charity of our client's choice.
	 You say that you have spent time meeting my client and talking about the Swan development. Notwithstanding, it seems that you have failed to understand what my client is trying to achieve.
	 All that my client wants is to vindicate his reputation as swiftly as possible. However, if a suitable correction and apology, costs, damages and an undertaking not to repeat these or any similar defamatory and maliciously false allegations cannot swiftly be agreed, he will have no alternative but to issue proceedings.
	 We obviously also need to discuss how quickly you can circulate your apology around the constituency. Clearly this will have to be done much more quickly than your usual six weekly cycle in order to alleviate the continuing harm to our client's reputation.
	 Meanwhile, could you please inform us, as we requested in our original letter of 29 July 2009, how many copies of the offending text were distributed; who wrote the offending text; who authorised its publication; who published it; and the date of issue.
	 2. Alternative wording to those to whom the original leaflet was not delivered
	 As previously indicated today, our client has no objection to replace the offending text with the new text set out in your e-mail of yesterday's date sent at 12.32 pm.
	 Yours sincerely,
	 Withers LLP ]

Haiti

Diane Abbott: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will let the House have the most up-to-date information on the recent massive earthquake in Haiti.
	The House is aware that Her Majesty's Government do not have the historic links with Haiti that they have with the rest of the British-speaking Caribbean; none the less, the entire Caribbean will be looking to the Government's response to this awful tragedy. Haiti has had a turbulent recent history. It has very poor infrastructure and it will be reliant on international help-

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to develop her thoughts, but at this point we will hear from the Secretary of State.

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful for the opportunity afforded by this question to update the House on the present situation. A series of major earthquakes struck Haiti last night in the area around the capital, Port-au-Prince. The strongest of these was reported at 7.2 on the Richter scale. Up to 13 aftershocks have since taken place. Information on the scale of damage and the number of people killed or injured is slowly emerging. Our initial estimates suggest that some 6 million people live in the affected area, and 1 million people in the worst affected area. Early press reports and limited information from the United States Government and the United Nations describe numerous collapsed buildings, including a hospital, many houses and the presidential palace. By any measure this is a terrible tragedy.
	My Department has a four-person field assessment team en route to Port-au-Prince in order to determine the priorities for urgent assistance. We have already mobilised a UK fire and rescue service search and rescue team of 64 people with dogs and heavy rescue equipment. The team and their 10 tonnes of equipment are at present assembling at Gatwick airport and are ready to deploy as soon as the airport reopens following heavy snow. We are urgently looking at all options to ensure that the search and rescue team can deploy as quickly as possible, including the possibility of an RAF flight. I have been informed that the United States currently has two search and rescue teams mobilising and ready to depart from Miami. The Iceland search and rescue team is also mobilising. However, a further complication facing all teams is that Port-au-Prince airport is believed to be unusable. We are urgently assessing alternatives.
	Haiti is, of course, one of the poorest countries in the world. The need in the aftermath of this tragedy is likely to be very great. The United Kingdom stands ready, as part of the international community, to provide humanitarian assistance in the wake of this devastating earthquake.

Diane Abbott: The House is aware that Her Majesty's Government do not have the historic links with Haiti that they do with the English-speaking Caribbean, but none the less, further instability and privation in Haiti is a matter for the entire region. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his very full response, which moves us on from the press reports that we have heard this morning. I am sure that people in the Caribbean who are following the debate, and people in Haiti itself, will be grateful that Her Majesty's Government are so keen to be of assistance.

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and of course I wish to pay tribute to the depth of her knowledge and experience of the Caribbean. I am sure that it will be of comfort to her constituents and others across the country that the Government, and I am sure the whole House, are determined for Britain to play its part in response to this tragedy.
	My hon. Friend is right to recognise that although Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere, we have not historically had a strong development relationship as a consequence of the fact that the French, the Canadians and the United States have primarily led on development assistance to Haiti. However, as I have said, we stand ready to consider what humanitarian assistance is required once the rescue phase of this tragedy is complete.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for her question and the Secretary of State for the response that he has given the House.
	Throughout the country, there will be deep concern for the people of Haiti at this awful time. As the Secretary of State said, it is the poorest country in the western hemisphere, and it is the least well equipped to cope with such a catastrophe. As all the evidence shows, the actions taken in the immediate aftermath of the disaster will determine how effectively the needs that result from it are addressed. In this case, the whole international community should ensure a swift and effective response, although clearly the United States is in the key position to provide help.
	Will the Secretary of State give further details about the composition of the UK assessment team being dispatched to the region? When will it arrive, and when will we know what further support the British Government can offer? Can he assure the House that the whole Whitehall machinery, not just the Department for International Development, is firmly joined up on that point?
	Can the Secretary of State provide us with any information about the number of British nationals who are currently in Haiti, their situation and the steps being taken to look after them?
	As I said, the United States will no doubt have the leading role in the international response. What recent conversations has the Secretary of State had with his counterparts in the United States to ensure that that response is properly co-ordinated?
	Many members of the British public will want to do all they can to support the people of Haiti at this time. What guidance can the Secretary of State give as to how their efforts should best be directed? Can he also update the House on how the neighbouring Dominican Republic has been affected?
	In 2007 my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), a shadow International Development Minister, became the first senior British politician for some time to visit Haiti and spent time with the UN forces there, who are so important in these circumstances. We hear that they have been hit hard by the earthquake. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the latest news about the impact of the earthquake on the UN mission in Haiti, and what discussions has he had with colleagues at the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations in New York about the matter?
	Our total focus at the moment must be on saving lives and getting help to those who need it, but will the Secretary of State accept that in due course and when the time is right, it will be necessary to have a full review of Britain's emergency response process in such circumstances?

Douglas Alexander: Let me associate myself with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expressed. I shall endeavour to answer the range of questions that he put before the House.
	I certainly concur about the need for swift and effective action, and as part of the international community we are endeavouring to achieve that. The field assessment team is a four-person team, and is required to give us the opportunity to achieve the co-ordination of which he spoke. I can assure the House that there has been no delay in assembling the search and rescue capability-the 64 British firefighters who are gathering at Gatwick as we speak, to take forward the rescue phase of the effort.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as I sought to reflect in my original answer, we are working closely with our colleagues across Whitehall. Discussions are already under way with the Ministry of Defence, and of course with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about British subjects in the affected region. The situation on the ground is chaotic, and as a consequence the information remains sketchy. I sought the advice of the Foreign Office minutes before appearing at the Dispatch Box, and it has had approximately 15 to 20 calls from family members here in the United Kingdom raising concerns about the possibility of UK nationals being in the country. Two of those identified in those calls have already made contact with their families since the calls were made to the Foreign Office earlier this morning. I can assure the House that the Foreign Office is keeping the situation under very close review.
	In relation to contacts with the United States Government, the judgment to mobilise the 64 British firefighters was on the basis of conversations with our opposite numbers in the United States. Their assessment was that the need was clearly already so great that assistance in addition to the two American heavy lift and heavy rescue capability teams now en route to Haiti would be required. It was on the basis of conversations with the Americans that we mobilised our team.
	As for what British citizens who are concerned about this human tragedy can do, my understanding is that as we speak, a meeting of the major British agencies is taking place. As is the case with similar tragedies, there will then be a judgment as to whether to launch a Disasters Emergency Committee appeal or independent appeals by the charities.
	Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has already issued a statement. As I understand it, the Chinese and the Brazilians have raised concerns in relation to a number of the peacekeepers they have as part of the UN mission in Haiti, but it would perhaps be more appropriate for me to take the opportunity to update the House in due course, as the situation develops, on those and other related matters.

Michael Moore: I too thank the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for giving us the opportunity for this update today, and I associate myself and my colleagues with the comments made by the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State. The horrors in Haiti this morning are utterly unimaginable, and the impact is all the worse for being the latest in a very long list of geographical disasters, which are complicated by political divisions and terrible uncertainty.
	The Liberal Democrats welcome the initiative the Secretary has announced and the speedy response he indicated. Will he tell us what other forms of assistance, beyond the rescue teams, he is contemplating, perhaps as the next stage of assistance with the recovery? Others in the European Union and from elsewhere in the world will also be looking to see how they can assist. Will he explain to the House how all those different efforts will be co-ordinated?
	The international community has a desperate habit of losing interest in, and forgetting, countries once the television crews have gone home, so looking to the longer-term, will the Secretary of State give us an assurance that with our partners, he will re-examine the support that we provide to Haiti and other vulnerable countries like it, and prepare help for them on a sustainable and secure basis?

Douglas Alexander: Again, I am grateful for those remarks and associate myself with the determination that the hon. Gentleman communicates that the United Kingdom should play its part. Let me deal with two or three of the specific points that he raises. He is right to recognise that in any major disaster such as this one, there is a rescue phase-and that is what our efforts are focused on at the moment. The assessment team will contribute to the recovery phase and to an assessment of the humanitarian requirements.
	In the wake of a tragedy such as this, there are always requirements for food, shelter, clean water and medicines. That is why the hon. Gentleman's point about the co-ordination of the international effort is so apposite. We are already in discussions with OCHA-the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs-which has historically led such efforts. Tragically, because of our familiarity with major disasters over recent years, it has developed real expertise in the cluster system, whereby individual countries can slot their contribution into a more co-ordinated and joined-up international effort.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the European Union, which is historically one of the partners of Haiti. We are already in discussion with European partners, and we anticipate that ECHO-the European Community Humanitarian Office-the EU's humanitarian assistance arm, will be heavily engaged in the response to the tragedy. Again, I will take the opportunity to update the House on the continued efforts to co-ordinate those international efforts in due course.

Alan Simpson: Some of the earliest of today's press reports talk about the overwhelming numbers of people presenting themselves with severe lacerations and broken limbs to hospitals that have collapsed. Will the Secretary of State outline what medical elements are in the package of immediate support that the UK is offering? They will help to keep people alive.

Douglas Alexander: We are delivering a capability through the 64 search and rescue specialists, who have expertise and knowledge. However, in the first instance, our challenge is physically to get people out from under the rubble. The indications are that because the centre of the earthquake affected a very built-up area of Port-au-Prince, there will be a requirement to remove people from the wreckage of buildings.
	Alongside that, we are working with others to make sure that the medical supplies and medical professionals required to address this challenge are deployed. The Red Cross-both its international arm and the Red Cross bodies that represent individual nations-is already heavily engaged. I assure my hon. Friend that this is one of the issues that we have already been regularly discussing this morning.

Malcolm Bruce: The International Development Committee looked at the Government's response to emergencies a couple of years ago. I commend the Secretary of State on his ability to show how that works at very short notice. We visited the emergency room in Victoria street.
	Can the Secretary of State ensure that the co-ordination that follows from this disaster will avoid a lot of duplication of effort, which can go to waste? That has happened with other disasters. In particular, will the United Nations have the capacity to play that role, as it sought to do in Pakistan?

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's question and the knowledge and expertise that he and his Committee have brought to bear on these issues. It would be fair to characterise the United Nations capability as significantly improved, although still with significant room for improvement. I am mindful of the lessons that needed to be drawn after the Pakistan earthquake, and we have put significant effort into strengthening the capability for immediate response and co-ordination.
	I have already been questioned elsewhere this morning on why we are sending an assessment team in the face of the immediacy of the human tragedy. It is to address exactly the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman-so that we can both understand the scale of the humanitarian need and deploy effectively with our international partners to address that need. Alongside the rescue phase, work is already under way genuinely to understand the needs of a country that we should not forget was desperately poor even before this tragedy. Then we will be working with the United Nations to ensure a co-ordinated and sustained response to this tragedy.

Tom Levitt: With an island such as Haiti, there is always a danger that an earthquake will be associated with a tsunami, although thankfully that does not appear to have happened on this occasion. However, does my right hon. Friend recall that after the tsunami in the far east, the world pledged to improve the early warning systems for tsunamis and earthquakes? Was there any early warning on this occasion? What are his thoughts about the early warning preparation and the preparedness of the wider Caribbean?

Douglas Alexander: It is one minor consolation in the face of the scale of this tragedy that a tsunami was not one of the features of this earthquake. But I assure my hon. Friend that the issue of early warning systems has been central in many minds following the terrible tsunami on Boxing day some years ago. I was then serving at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I took the opportunity to visit Aceh at the time. It was clear that many more lives could have been saved if there had been more effective early warning systems. That is why, since the terrible tragedy of the first tsunami in Aceh and Sri Lanka, we have worked closely with the Governments affected to provide that support.
	I have to say that it was a great source of pride to me, on behalf of all Members of the House, to see, on a recent visit to Bangladesh, that British taxpayers' money had helped to contribute to the disaster preparedness of the people there. That had prevented the tragedy of the recent cyclone from being an even greater tragedy, as a result of early warning and the provision of cyclone shelters. There are lessons that can be drawn from elsewhere in the world, and we have been working on this matter for a number of years.

Gary Streeter: Do we know whether the Government of Haiti are still functioning, or have they taken high-level casualties? Would it not be a double disaster if, in addition to the casualties on the ground, there were further political instability in an island that is already pretty fragile?

Douglas Alexander: The position, I am afraid, is not yet clear. We know that the presidential palace has been damaged, along with other significant Government buildings. A spokesman from the Haitian Government broadcast on CNN this morning, urging help from international partners. However, the situation in the country is both chaotic and unclear. That is why we are working so closely with our friends and colleagues in the United States and elsewhere-to try to get a clearer and quick assessment of the true situation on the ground.
	My final point is that the hon. Gentleman is right to recognise that a disaster on this scale would test even the strongest of states; given Haiti's blighted history, it will undoubtedly require the support of the international community.

Harry Cohen: Will the Royal Navy be galvanised as part of this important aid and rebuilding programme? Will my right hon. Friend contact the United States to ensure that it uses its extensive naval resources to get important aid, including medical supplies, into Haiti?

Douglas Alexander: I would not wish to prejudge what assets could be required by the international community. The early indications are that although Port-au-Prince airport was unusable this morning, there are other airports both in Haiti and the Dominican Republic that would perhaps provide a more immediate and speedier response than would be offered by the deployment of naval assets. However, I am sure that if that requirement emerges, it will be given serious consideration, given the scale of the United States' naval assets in the Caribbean and the region.

Shailesh Vara: When the priorities for what is needed in Haiti are established, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that food and actual materials-blankets and so on-will be given, rather than a cheque being made over to the authorities?

Douglas Alexander: As I said, an assessment team is en route at the moment to judge exactly what is required. However, within the capability of the Department for International Development are exactly the kind of supplies of which the hon. Gentleman speaks-whether they are as basic as blankets, tents and canvas to provide shelter or the ability to work with other British agencies to provide water and sanitation; an organisation such as Oxfam is literally world class in the provision of water and sanitation in the wake of such disasters.
	We will consider all the requirements and options but I would fully anticipate that, as has consistently been the case in humanitarian responses in recent years, the response will involve material goods, rather than simply the writing of a cheque.

Mike Gapes: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Turks and Caicos Islands, a British overseas territory, is not too far from Haiti. Is he giving consideration to how the Haitian people living in TCI-there are several thousand people of Haitian origin there-will be affected, and to any assistance that can be given from British territories in the region?

Douglas Alexander: I am sure that the overseas territories department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be considering that matter. Our most immediate priority within the Department for International Development has, of course, been the rescue response and the recovery phase. But it is right to recognise that there will be a regional dimension to this tragedy. That is why we have such strong working relationships through the overseas territories department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In response to the question that my hon. Friend has raised, I can say that I expect that those will be utilised.

Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State may know that there are significant numbers of French-speaking people in the UK, who I am sure will have a particular interest. The Churches, particularly the Roman Catholic Church, have strong links with Haiti. Furthermore, organisations such as Voluntary Service Overseas have sent many people with expertise in various fields to work in Haiti over the years. Can the Secretary of State make sure that those groups, among others, are called on? I am sure that they wish to assist, and will be competent and able to do so.

Douglas Alexander: Of course. I pay tribute to the work that Church organisations and non-governmental organisations from the United Kingdom have done for some time to support the people of Haiti, often in extraordinarily difficult and challenging circumstances. As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, it has been a rather busy morning for us in the Department, but I anticipate that in fairly short order we will bring together the relevant NGOs-those that have worked in Haiti and/or have an interest in responding to this humanitarian tragedy-so that we can update them and assess how they can help.

BILL PRESENTED

United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. John Redwood, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mr. Graham Brady, Sir Peter Tapsell, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. John Whittingdale and Mr. Brian Binley, presented a Bill to reaffirm the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed (Bill 48).

Veterans' Welfare

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Michael Moore: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to review and report to Parliament annually on the support provided to armed forces veterans across the United Kingdom in respect of access to health services, access to welfare schemes and access to other support; and for connected purposes.
	We ask a lot of our armed forces, and it is appropriate that in this House we should regularly acknowledge our debt of honour to the brave men and women who put their lives at risk on our behalf in many different parts of the world. I am happy to do so again today. As our country has been embroiled in different conflicts in recent years, it is also right that at the beginning of Prime Minister's questions each week, it has become the custom to pay tribute to those who have died serving our country-as we did again today, following the sad news of the death of Captain Daniel Read, of the Royal Logistic Corps, in Afghanistan. I should like to add my condolences to those already expressed by the Prime Minister and others.
	The support given to the armed forces is actively debated in the House and rightly so, but today my focus is on the veterans-the millions of people who have served our country over many different decades and have returned to civilian life. In our own constituencies we come across them every day, contributing immeasurably to local communities while modestly playing down the roles that they had and the risks that they took.
	I have been delighted in recent years to assist more than 400 constituents in obtaining their veterans badge. I have been honoured to present many of them and to listen to the experiences of the people who have earned them. Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have been approached countless times to help veterans in their civilian battles as they try to get assistance with the health, financial or other problems that now confront them. Through Armistice day and other initiatives, we will not forget the sacrifices of those who have died, but it is equally important that we do not forget those who have survived but who need our help to cope. High levels of war fighting over the past decade have created a new generation of veterans with specialised needs at the same time as earlier generations who fought in the second world war and subsequently move into old age and experience the extra problems associated with their service.
	In helping our constituents, we are given invaluable support by all kinds of organisations. My constituency includes the historic home of Earl Haig, whose eponymous charity plays a huge part in supporting veterans and their dependants and in raising awareness of the challenges facing them. There are countless others, such as the Royal British Legion and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, whose networks of volunteers across the United Kingdom tackle some of the most complex welfare issues imaginable.
	The demand is great and I acknowledge that it is recognised by the Government. Beyond the introduction of the veterans badge, we have seen the establishment of the Veterans Agency, the publication of the service personnel command paper and, more recently, the pathway initiative. The shortcomings in the support available to veterans are obvious from the awareness campaigns undertaken on their behalf. Research on health services by my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) has established that 80 per cent. of local health authorities in England and Wales and 57 per cent. in Scotland have no idea how many veterans they have treated under the priority access scheme. Local health services do not understand the scheme and so veterans are losing out.
	The British Medical Association has suggested simple changes that could transform the situation, including better training for NHS personnel on clinical matters affecting veterans and requiring a patient's veteran status to appear on the front of his or her medical records. The Royal National Institute for Deaf People points out that a veteran in the UK has to endure hearing loss of 50 dB-twice that of their United States counterparts-before they will be considered for compensation in the UK. As many of my father's generation found out to their cost, the five-year time limit imposed for applications for compensation is too restrictive and excludes many from accessing the support that they should have.
	Away from health issues, Poppyscotland's recent research shows that the second most common problem facing veterans after mobility issues was financial difficulty, yet as it points out, there is no single point of delivery for financial advice for veterans in Scotland. Research from the Royal British Legion has shown that many veterans have been forced to wait an unacceptable amount of time before receiving grants to which they are entitled and homelessness remains a real blight, with the charity Veterans Aid taking around 2,000 calls per year from veterans who are homeless or at risk of being homeless through debt and other problems.
	Looking after veterans is complex and demanding, and it is made more so by the fact that the responsibility for care and support is divided among different agencies and Departments and between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. I accept that the Government's 2008 Command Paper, "The Nation's Commitment", has sought to bring Departments together. It also seeks improvements in the ways in which local authorities and devolved Administrations consult the Ministry of Defence on veterans issues. Despite the myriad Government measures and voluntary schemes, however, assistance provided to veterans across the United Kingdom remains too fragmented. Organisations working with veterans keep reminding us that they are often reluctant to claim their entitlements and none of them wants preferential treatment.
	We must recognise that we owe veterans a duty of care. We must spell that out. We must do better to make veterans aware of their entitlements and how to access them. We must transform the way in which health and other service providers fulfil their obligations to veterans and take care of their specialist needs. To help us achieve all this, we need urgently to reform the way in which we gather information about the needs of veterans and how they access help. In Parliament, we should debate a Ministry of Defence report on these issues every year.
	This Bill seeks to address such issues and to allow Parliament to fulfil its scrutiny role more effectively. It would establish a legally binding code on veterans' welfare, setting out a duty of care to veterans. That veterans covenant would include the right to an individual needs assessment, spelling out the services in which they should have priority or other access. It would also provide for monitoring reports on individuals' experiences at appropriate points in their lives. The Bill would place a duty on the Ministry of Defence to implement the veterans covenant by maintaining a register of veterans, co-ordinating the work of UK Government Departments and liaising with the devolved Administrations. Finally, the MOD would be required to report to Parliament annually on the implementation of the code.
	The debt of honour we owe to our veterans is vast. As a modest step towards tackling our dues, I beg leave to introduce this Bill.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Michael Moore, Nick Harvey, Willie Rennie, Bob Russell, Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Mr. Paul Burstow, Julia Goldsworthy, Malcolm Bruce, Danny Alexander, Sir Robert Smith, John Mason and David Cairns present the Bill.
	Mr. Michael Moore accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February , and to be printed (Bill 47).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

Education, Training and Skills

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

David Willetts: I beg to move,
	That this House notes with concern the increase in the number of young people not in employment, education or training and the fall in the number of apprenticeship starts; further notes that there will be a shortage of university places in 2010 and that the continuing problems with the Student Loans Company will impact on those students beginning their studies this year; calls on the Government to clarify its position on university places after the annual Higher Education Funding Council for England grant letter and on imposing fines on those higher education institutions that take on more students to meet the 50 per cent. participation target; further calls on the Government to consider proposals for the rapid expansion of apprenticeships and to free further education colleges from stifling bureaucracy so they may meet the needs of young people; and urges the Government to offer 10,000 additional university places in order to build aspiration, opportunity and a competitive economy.
	The basis for the motion is very simple: sadly, it is a widely recognised fact that young people in our country are the first and worst victims of this recession. The shocking figures are all too familiar. The number of young people not in education, employment or training is now more than 1 million-it is 1,082,000. The rate of youth unemployment in Britain, with 950,000 young people unemployed, is one of the worst in Europe. In fact, it is a sad irony that the Government were first elected in 1997 on a pledge card that they would reduce youth unemployment by 250,000. Under their watch, it has risen by more than 250,000 since then. That is a very serious challenge to us all.
	This is not just about youth unemployment or the fact that young people have been the first and worst victims of the recession. It looks as though the higher education and training budget has proved to be one of the first and worst victims of the fiscal crisis that the Government have created. The Opposition understand the need for tough measures and for public spending to be brought down, because that is the mess that the Government have created and that has to be tackled. However, we have called this debate because we want to hear from the Minister what measures the Government are taking to tackle the crisis, and a full explanation of how he believes the cuts that have been announced in stages over the past few months will impact on universities and colleges. I have to say to the Minister that the suspicion is that the Department that he represents has fallen victim to the political arguments in the Labour Government between- [ Interruption. ] The Minister denies it, but not with an entirely straight face. The arguments are between the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, who famously said on 20 September 2009,
	"I said...that I wanted to see us carrying on with real terms rises in our key public services"-
	we will not hear the word "cuts" pass his lips-and the First Secretary of State, Lord Mandelson, who said on 14 September 2009 that
	"spending in some areas will be reduced".
	When challenged on whether front-line services would be under the spotlight, Lord Mandelson said:
	"Everything is going to have to be examined."
	The First Secretary of State is making an example of his Department in a strategic debate that he is having with some of his Cabinet colleagues about what approach the Government should take to the fiscal crisis. If that is what he is arguing as part of Labour party strategy, we should not be surprised that it looks like, so far, by far the biggest cuts have fallen within the budgets of higher and further education.
	It is worth being clear about what those cuts are, so it would be helpful if the Minister explained them properly. Our understanding is that a £180 million efficiency saving was announced in the 2009 Budget; a £600 million further reduction was announced in the autumn statements; and a £135 million further reduction was announced in a letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England on 22 December. That adds up to what is believed to be a £915 million cut. What steps is he taking to deliver those reductions and what does he think they mean for the numbers of students and the quality of the student experience? We want to hold him to account, and universities need to know exactly what the cuts will entail.
	Buried at the end of the letter to the HEFCE, was a revealing figure that brought home the scale of the reductions. At the beginning of this period, in 2007-08 prices, the planned unit of funding-the amount of teaching support for students-was £4,140. According to the letter to the HEFCE, that will fall to £3,950 in 2010-11 in constant prices. That looks to be the key figure, and it is contrary to all the assurances we have had that teaching would be protected as part of this exercise. How does the Minister plan to deliver those significant reductions in the higher education budget?
	We also hope to hear from the Minister about what the reductions mean for the number of student places. We are close to the 15 January deadline for applications-we understand that it was extended by a few days because of the weather-but can he indicate to the House how many university applications he expects this autumn? From provisional figures collected earlier in the year, we know that we were already looking at a 12 per cent. increase in applications for 2010 on top of applications in 2009-and 2009 was itself a record year.
	We understand the reasons for those big increases in applications. With high rates of unemployment, many more young people apply to go to university, and of course there was a mini baby boom in the early '90s, which means that there is now a large number of 18 and 19-year-olds in that cohort. We want to hear from the Minister how many places will be available at universities for this further surge in the number of applicants. The fear is that there will be an increase in the number of young people applying and an absolute decline in the number of places available for them.
	That would be an extraordinary position for the Government to have got themselves into. They have an official target of getting 50 per cent. of people into university. First the Government set the target, and then last year universities offered extra places for those students. Now, however, we are told that institutions will be fined for taking on those extra students. This must be the first time a Government have fined an institution for taking the steps necessary to reach the Government's own announced target-in this case, of more people going to university.
	The Opposition do not believe in artificial targets, such as the 50 per cent. target, and are comfortable with the Robbins principle, which states simply that
	"courses of higher education should be available to all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so".
	That seems to us a much more sensible approach than artificial targets. At the same time, we have practical proposals for how we could find more places for students in the crisis year of 2010.

Gordon Marsden: The hon. Gentleman is talking about targets and pooh-poohing the idea behind them. He talked earlier about units of funding, but does he not acknowledge that the lack of targets under Tory Governments in the 1990s led to one of the lowest ever units of funding for university students?

David Willetts: I accept that in that period we saw a big increase in student numbers but not a comparable increase in the unit of resource per student. Labour Members used to make that criticism, but now they are presiding over a reduction in the unit of resource per student. That is why, this time, we have a specific proposal for 2010 that avoids the problem identified by the hon. Gentleman. We have cautiously and prudently identified an extra source of cash that could go to universities in the crisis likely to be faced in the summer of 2010 of so many university applications with a possible reduction-on the Government's plans-in the number of places. We have said that there should be a bonus-a special discount-for people who repay their student loans early, which would bring extra cash into the system now, before Lord Browne of Madingley has a chance to report.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman has raised that point before. He said that it is a practical proposal, but will he tell us how he has costed it and what its cost is, including the dead-weight cost of giving a discount to those who would repay anyway?

David Willetts: We have made a simple and cautious assumption that by summer 2010, there will be £30 billion of outstanding student debt. We believe, from looking at similar but not identical schemes in New Zealand and Australia, that it is reasonable and cautious to assume that 1 per cent. of that debt will be repaid early-£300 million.
	In order to avoid the problems now faced by Ministers, which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) mentioned, we have fully costed university places. We have not used places costing less than the average-if anything, we have costed them slightly more highly than we believe is the average. We have said that a university place costs £10,000 a year in total public funding, which includes maintenance and teaching support. Over three years, therefore, the full cost in public expenditure of a student place is £30,000, which means that the £300 million that we have identified would provide an extra 10,000 places.
	That is a carefully costed, fully explained model that does not-this touches on the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed-involve any reduction in the unit of resource per student. Those would be extra places on top of the Government's planned number of student places. Given that we are waiting for the proposals from Lord Browne's funding review, and given the inexorable looming crisis and special circumstances facing us this summer, that is the right thing to do. Unlike Ministers, who appear to be proposing a reduction in the number of places for students just when there is a surge in applications, we are confronting a practical problem that needs addressing, because the Conservative party cares about educational opportunities for young people who wish to go to university.
	When Ministers announced their latest round of cuts before Christmas, they talked about delivering more education courses for students through two-year degrees. We fully understand the case for such degrees. They are by no means a complete solution to the pressures faced by universities, but they are the kind of option that they have to consider. As so often happens with the Government, however, they proposed apparently new ideas that in reality have been around for some time and which they themselves have been undermining through their own policies. Will the Minister confirm, therefore, that in the same week that the briefing was issued saying that we should not worry about the public expenditure reductions because in future we would have so many two-year courses, the HEFCE announced a reduction in funding for foundation degrees, which are one way in which the shorter courses are delivered? Such initiatives are already in the system. The HEFCE has said that it will
	"reduce the funding provided through the targeted allocation to support foundation degrees, and keep this under review in light of any further requests for efficiency savings."
	So at the same time that this supposedly radical new approach to universities is being floated, the funding for the initiative that is supposed to bring it to pass is quietly being strangled. That is an example of the Government's spin running along completely detached from the reality.
	We are pleased that Lord Browne's review is a funding review-something that we pressed for-and not simply a fees review. We hope that it will tackle the underlying problems and pressures facing universities. Meanwhile, we are concerned to tackle the challenge that our universities will face in 2010, because we do not believe that the Government are doing so.
	While we have the Minister here in the Chamber, let me ask him about another concern, which we realise many students still face, namely the continuing operational problems of the Student Loans Company. Let me remind the House of how the Government launched the policy in July 2006 and of the expression used by the previous Higher Education Minister, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell). For those of us on the Opposition Benches who wrestle with our constituents' problems, it is worth reminding the House that the case for the new system was that it would result in
	"clearer information, faster decisions, timely payments and accurate repayments."
	That is what we were promised in 2006, when the policy was launched. Since then, of course, we have had a shocking report, revealing not just the many cases of maladministration and incompetence, but problems that go back to the Department, which was endlessly chopping and changing the rules for student maintenance, creating a system that was far too complicated for the Student Loans Company to administer.
	I hope that the Minister will tell the House, first, how many students are still waiting for their student grant forms to be processed and for the money to be received; secondly, how many disabled students in particular are still suffering from such problems; and thirdly, what assurance he can give us that the problems that are still hanging over from last year will not interfere with the efficient handling of new claims for 2010, which are starting now. We know, from the spirals of problems that the tax credits system, the Rural Payments Agency and the Child Support Agency have got into, that the real problems start when we do not sort out the first year's problems before the second year of cases arrive. That is why the issue is so important. We need to know that the overhang of historical problems will not affect the next round of student applications.

Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend, who is making such an interesting speech, concede that there is an analogy with student numbers? Just as the grants and loans for last year have got mixed up-they might get mixed up with next year's too-so the backlog of students who might have taken gap years or otherwise will now impact on the further demand for student places in the coming year.

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes an important point. That is another reason why we believe that there will be a surge in applications in 2010. Some prospective students who could not get a place last year will reapply this year.

Rob Marris: On student places, the 1 per cent. from the student loan book and so on, do I understand the hon. Gentleman to be saying that the 10,000 places to which the motion refers will simply be for one year, as appears to be the case, or does he expect a 1 per cent. premature pay-down from that £30 billion every year, which is the only way, on his figures, that those 10,000 extra places could continue year on year, with other cohorts going through?

David Willetts: Our policy is designed for the particular problems that we will face in the summer of 2010. The places are costed for three years, so the students will be able to continue at university, and we are assuming that £300 million will be coming through. We have designed the measure specifically to tackle a crisis caused by particular reasons-because unemployment is so high and because of the surge in the birth rate-and before we have had Lord Browne's wider proposals on higher education reform. We need to do something for an immediate, pressing crisis, and that is what the policy is aimed at doing.

Kevin Brennan: rose-

David Willetts: I will give way to the Minister again, but let me say that we are noticing a pattern: we put forward practical proposals to solve problems and we are questioned about them by his party.

Kevin Brennan: It is because they do not add up. However, will the hon. Gentleman answer the question that I asked him earlier: what estimate has he made of the dead-weight cost of his proposal, in relation to those who already pay back early?

David Willetts: We are talking about extra payments that we are bringing into the system as a result of the discount. Of course it is true that there is a modest amount of repayments. We have done the calculations, which include an allowance for the modest amount of repayments made, which will benefit the discount. That is why we can afford the policy, with the £300 million coming in. That is how the policy has been costed.
	Let me now turn to a subject over which we have occasionally drawn a discreet veil. However, in the year when we are marking the 200th anniversary of the birth of the great William Gladstone, it is right that we should devote a moment's attention to the policies of the Liberal Democrats. In the 200th anniversary year of the grand old man of British politics, we are going to lavish attention on the Liberal Democrats. I enjoyed participating in a radio discussion over the Christmas break about his achievements with Lord Adonis, who was far more passionate in his defence of William Gladstone than was Lord Steel, who was also on the programme.
	We are going to give some attention to the Liberal Democrats because hon. Members on both the Conservative and Labour Benches would like to get a sense of where Lib Dem policy on university fees currently lies. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) would like to take the opportunity to clarify that in his speech. However, as he studied history at Bristol university, perhaps we should try an historical account, just to be clear where we are.
	In 2005, his party, like my party, went into the general election saying that fees should be abolished. With the financial pressures facing universities, we have recognised that that is not a sustainable policy. We have accepted that fees must stay, and we look forward to seeing whatever proposals emerge from Lord Browne's report. The Lib Dems started off in 2005 by saying that they would abolish fees. Then, when the hon. Gentleman took up his responsibilities, he looked into changing the policy. However, I have to warn him that, although it is perhaps rather sad, I keep old copies of  Times Higher Education.

Rob Marris: It is very sad.

David Willetts: It is, but it also means that I have records of the various statements that the hon. Member for Bristol, West has made about higher education policy over the years. There is an article in  Times Higher Education in September 2008 that is headed: "Leaders of Lib Dems to ditch fees policy". It says:
	"The leaders of the Liberal Democrats plan to abandon the party's opposition to student tuition fees. Stephen Williams, Lib Dem Shadow Secretary of State...said that the policy was not sustainable...Mr. Williams said that Nick Clegg, the leader of the party, had come to this conclusion after 'long internal discussions'."
	In September 2008, the original policy was apparently to be abandoned. We understood that, and that is what the hon. Gentleman said to  Times Higher Education.
	By 2009, there seems to have been rather a dramatic change. I have here an old Liberal Democrat press release-that is even sadder-from 17 March 2009, which is headed: "University fees should be scrapped not doubled-Williams". By March 2009, the Lib Dems were back to their election policy that university fees should be scrapped. Their policy, which had been carefully considered after a large amount of internal debate, was going, and they were back to saying that fees should go.
	Then we had the excitement of the Liberal Democrats' party conference. By September 2009, we had a statement from the Liberal Democrats that was reported with the headline: "Liberal Democrats may ditch pledge to abolish tuition fees". It therefore looked as though they had once more recognised that, sadly, their policy was not feasible. It was reported that:
	"On the opening day of the Lib Dems' annual conference in Bournemouth, Clegg said he had to be 'realistic' about whether the flagship policy was affordable given the country's mountain of debt."
	It looked as though the Lib Dems went into their party conference attempting once more to abandon their pledge to abolish their policy. However, after the latest set of changes-it is only because the hon. Member for Bristol, West is an historian by trade that I am taking the House through the background-we now understand that the Lib Dem leader is saying that
	"he could not scrap tuition fees in one Parliament but said he would do it over six years."
	That is a subtle distinction. The policy cannot quite be done in one Parliament, but that extra year, taking us beyond the next election, suddenly makes it possible.
	Given that we all know the kind of propaganda that the Liberal Democrats put about on the doorstep, both Conservative and Labour Members would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman could confirm, perhaps in an intervention, that what I have described is an accurate account of the history of their internal discussions on tuition fees since the last election. We would all very much appreciate it if he could give us today's policy.

Iain Wright: This hour's policy.

David Willetts: Indeed. Will the hon. Member for Bristol, West tell us that policy, so that we can tell the people who are sometimes taken in by wild and uncosted Lib Dem promises exactly what they are saying?

Jim Cunningham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to extract from the Liberal Democrats their policy on tuition fees. Is he aware that the students union also wants to know where things stand with tuition fees?

David Willetts: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I believe that the National Union of Students has said that the Lib Dem policy is as clear as mud. That is why it is so important to take this opportunity to find out exactly what the policy is and what the magical thing is that they will manage to do in the sixth year that they could not do in the previous five.

Simon Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that even if he is fortunate enough to pin down the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the House, what the spokesman says will be academic? When candidates walk down streets and knock on doors, they will say anything, however contradictory, to any voter who opens the door in the hope of winning a vote.

David Willetts: My hon. Friend is so right, but at least we are trying to find out. I have been trying to put on the record what we know about their policies so that we have an opportunity to ensure that we can authoritatively explain the position.
	I have talked about higher education, and I want briefly to ask the Minister about where we are with skills and apprenticeships. There are ambitious targets on apprenticeships that are not being delivered. That is a similar story to what happened with the ambitious targets for participation in higher education. Will the Minister confirm that the latest quarterly figures for apprenticeship starts show that in the past three months, just 39,500 young people started a new apprenticeship? That is 26 per cent. fewer than in the same period last year. Will he confirm that those figures, sadly, show a decline in trend? That is despite the fact that they include apprenticeships at level 2, which is equivalent to GCSE level, whereas the Conservatives believe that apprenticeships should stand for what they have always stood for historically-qualifications at level 3, which is equivalent to A-levels. We would like to hear from the Minister about what is happening on his record on apprenticeship numbers. We are committed to shifting money from the Train to Gain budget to ensure that there are more opportunities for people to take up apprenticeships. Doing that, and having more places at further education colleges, is the right way to tackle the problems that young people face in this recession.

Tony Baldry: The first line of my hon. Friend's motion refers to those
	"not in employment, education or training",
	which is a growing number. One difficulty for those not in education, employment or training is where on earth they should go for advice. Jobcentre Plus cannot give them advice, because it does not know where the jobs, education or training opportunities are, and Connexions seems to have disappeared for anyone who has left school. Will he confirm that when we come into government, the work clubs that we propose-some voluntary job clubs already exist-will be able to give advice to those who are not in education, employment or training about how they can get back into the world of work, or back into education or training? If that does not happen, those people will be lost for ever.

David Willetts: What my hon. Friend says is so true. One of the real challenges and real problems that young people face is the disappearance of the careers adviser and the shocking weakness of information, advice and guidance. The Government produce report after report identifying that problem-indeed, it was powerfully expressed in the Milburn report on social mobility-but do nothing about it. They have an increasingly fragmented system. As my hon. Friend has said, Connexions appears not to be functioning as intended. That is why we believe in having a straightforward, all-age, independent careers service. It should be armed with the latest information available on the web, and more information should be collected than is currently available, so that young people will at least be guided through the maze that the Government have created of so many different vocational qualifications and training routes. That is very important.
	Finally, the Conservatives have committed in our proposals to working together to ensure that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will work with the Department for Work and Pensions to tackle the problems that young unemployed people face. I welcome the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) beside me on the Front Bench, because we are very aware of current criticisms about the Government's approach. The DWP welfare-to-work budget means jobs without training, and the fact that the Learning and Skills Council is paying FE colleges to churn out paper qualifications means training without jobs. The Conservatives are committed to ensuring that those two programmes are delivered in a coherent and complementary way, so that the work of FE colleges is focused on ensuring that young people are employable, and, equally, so that welfare-to-work providers focus on providing the training that young people need. We propose having incentives to reward them for long-term performance.

Andrew Selous: My hon. Friend has mentioned FE colleges. He will remember the fiasco earlier this year when colleges such as the former Dunstable college, now Central Bedfordshire college, in my constituency were out of pocket. That college was left £700,000 out of pocket because of the situation regarding plans that it had proposed and money that it could not get back. Will he touch on what he foresees for the future of such FE colleges, after the way that they have been treated, in relation to their future capital budget?

David Willetts: That is a widespread problem concerning FE colleges, about which there is a lot of unhappiness. What happened was that the colleges had become too dependent on LSC grants to pay for their capital projects, and so, as was shown by some figures that I obtained in a parliamentary answer, the proportion of the total capital spend that was coming out of the LSC capital grant was getting higher and higher. That meant that every £100 million was buying less capital than it used to. We believe that it is possible, with some ingenuity, to increase the effectiveness of the public budget to secure more FE capital.
	The Conservatives are committed to tackling the problems that young people face and to ensuring that they have extra places at university next year. We are committed to ensuring that FE colleges can thrive without the level of bureaucracy and red tape that they face under this Government. We are committed to ensuring that further education and training will work alongside welfare to work. For those reasons, I commend our motion to the House.

David Lammy: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add:
	"recognises the Government's commitment to maintaining investment in apprenticeships, higher education and skills and its commitment not to repeat the mistakes of past recessions, and to ensure that young people are not trapped in long-term unemployment; notes that since 1997 there have been 339,000 extra students in higher education, more than ever before, and that public funding has increased by over 25 per cent. in real terms creating the world-class higher education sector enjoyed today; further notes the Government's commitment to managed growth in higher education to sustain quality and success in widening access, creating the most diverse student population ever; commends the Government's commitment to helping graduates through the downturn; further notes that investment in apprenticeships today is over £1 billion in 2009-10, and that in 1997 there were only 65,000 starts compared to 240,000 in 2008-09; further notes the success of Train to Gain in supporting over 1.4 million course starts; commends the September Guarantee offering all 16 and 17 year olds an apprenticeship, school, college or training place; and acknowledges the Government's investment of £1.2 billion in the Future Jobs Fund to guarantee a job, training or work experience for every young person unemployed for 12 months, and the graduate guarantee giving graduates unemployed for six months a guarantee of a high-quality internship or training, or help to become self-employed."
	First, let me wish the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) a happy new year. I am pleased to be here in the Chamber at this early point in 2010 to put the Government's case yet again. It has been interesting to watch with marvel his transition from a flint-hearted monetarist to a caring, sharing and compassionate Conservative-perhaps securing his place in some future, distant Cabinet.

Tim Boswell: I reciprocate, collectively, the Minister's best wishes for the new year. He mentions the year 2010; was not that the target year by which 50 per cent. of young people were to participate in higher education? Is that target being met? Is it the Government's intention that it should be met, or has it been tacitly dropped?

David Lammy: As a former Higher Education Minister, and as someone who is recognised across the House as one who is constantly aware of the detail of issues, the hon. Gentleman will, I know, be aware that that is an aspiration of this Government and that it has been consistently opposed by the Conservatives. Labour Members are very proud of the participation rate of 43 per cent. and of the fact that more young people are in higher education than ever before.

Brian Binley: I am delighted to learn of that aspirational facet of the Minister's great concern. Will he tell us simply when he hopes that aspiration will be achieved?

David Lammy: If we continue to invest and to ensure, as we will, that despite having more students in higher education this year, there will be even more next year, we will meet that aspiration. Of course, in difficult economic times it is also important that students who need it get a grant to be in higher education-a grant that the Tories abolished and we introduced. It is all about managed growth, and we stand clear on that.

Joan Humble: I have met many young people in Blackpool who have benefited from the high aspirations put to them by the Government. Through the Government's Aimhigher programme and the reintroduction of grants, those young people are now going into higher education, which they had never before even thought about. They are exactly the young people who have benefited from the Minister's and the Government's programme.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We stand by Aimhigher, and I know that my hon. Friend will be very sad to know that the Opposition are committed to abolishing that programme, which supports the poorest young people across the country to make their way into higher education. I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will clarify his position on Aimhigher when he concludes the debate. We wish that the Opposition would match their words with deeds, which yet again we have not heard from the Conservatives today-it has to be action, not just words.
	The Opposition motion talks about the Government's higher education policies, but it does not, of course, talk about what we have achieved, so it is important that I put that on the record this afternoon. Since 1997, the total investment in higher education has risen by 25 per cent. in real terms, while spending on science and research has more than doubled. That is a Labour achievement. The last decade has seen 340,000 more students get a place in our universities because of the 50 per cent. aspiration, making about 2 million more home students in total. Again, that is more than ever before in our country's history-another Labour achievement. There are more people applying to university from non-traditional backgrounds and from the most deprived constituencies than ever before, with applications from constituencies like mine up not just by 10, 20 or 50 per cent., but by 100 per cent. That has happened under this Government and is a result of such programmes as Aimhigher, which Conservative Members would scrap. Once again, this is a Labour achievement.

Gordon Marsden: My right hon. Friend is talking about the Government's achievements in this area and about people from non-traditional backgrounds. Does he agree that the important steps that the Government have taken to support and improve the situation for part-time students, which the Conservatives had left virtually without support in 1997, have played a significant part in the story?

David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the position of part-time students on the record. It is this Government who have introduced support for part-time students for the first time. My hon. Friend will have seen that in our grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, we flagged up the position of part-time students. He will also have recognised that we asked Lord Browne to look specifically in his review at the further support that will be needed to get more equity into the system for part-time students. The Conservatives have not faced up to any of that.
	Everyone recognises the huge £6.4 billion capital investment in our university infrastructure across the country. Science facilities are now there, whereas they were falling apart under the Conservative Government-not to mention our commitment to research and teaching. All of that has taken place under a Labour Government.

Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that research and development is the lifeblood of manufacturing and industry in this country and that any proposals that Opposition Members have to cut that funding will have a major effect on the economy of this country, particularly in Coventry and the west midlands?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right: we cannot get back to growth without a ring-fenced research budget or without a commitment to science, technology, engineering and mathematics. He will have been alarmed at the £610 million cut to my Department's budget that was proposed by the Opposition 18 months ago. They wanted to do that 18 months ago-before the further, deeper, quicker, faster cuts that were called for by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on "The Andrew Marr Show" at the weekend. That would mean that there was absolutely nothing to support advanced manufacturing, nothing to support the low-carbon industries that we need for the future, and nothing for our digital economy or for our life sciences. It would mean a cut to the budget that they rely on.

Jim Cunningham: If that is the Opposition's proposal, does the Minister agree with me that it would have a major impact on apprenticeships as well? It will affect apprenticeships and industry, which shows that the Conservative policies are a sham?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend knows that there is a £34 billion black hole in the Opposition's proposals that cannot be costed. It absolutely means the loss of those advanced apprenticeships that they say they want. He also knows that the Opposition are not only unable to explain where the money would come from, but are also proposing-I hope to hear more about this in the winding-up speeches-to cut and abolish Train to Gain. That would undercut the parents of young people-often those from the poorest communities-who will be deprived of the training and skills they rely on in order to move forward. The Opposition are also very equivocal about unionlearn, which we are very proud of.

Jeff Ennis: On the potential future-or non-future under a Tory Government who want to scrap it-of Train to Gain, does the Minister agree that the employer reaction to the implementation of that scheme, not just from big employers but from the small and medium-sized ones, has been very positive, showing that this is the type of scheme that they want to participate in in greater numbers?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Tories are standing in the face of the CBI, small employers and the millions of people who have benefited from Train to Gain. Those people gained qualifications that they did not previously have. They are the engine of our economy-the people on the factory floor who want to improve their skills and drive the economy forward. Let me say that I remember the old CSEs, which meant young people in Tottenham being streamed off, failing to get the qualifications that they should have had. It is this Government who have put the qualifications back in place under Train to Gain.

David Willetts: Let me clarify our position on two points that the Minister has made. We believe in refocusing Train to Gain on apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeship training, and we believe that that was the right decision to take, given the evidence that much of the Train to Gain budget is spent on training that would have happened in any case. We also believe this is the right decision in a recession.
	Secondly, the Minister suggested that we did not believe in unionlearn. Let me make it clear that I have visited unionlearn projects and I believe that it does a valuable job in spreading access and knowledge of training. We do support unionlearn.

David Lammy: Yet another difficult-to-believe conversion from the hon. Gentleman! This cosying up to the unions, my God! Most people will be very surprised to see the hon. Gentleman cosying up for beer and sandwiches with our unions across the country. We do not believe it.

David Willetts: One thing that we like about unionlearn is that it is very cost-effective, and we in this party believe in the scrupulous management of public money. The amount of encouragement and training that one receives for relatively modest sums of money is very attractive indeed.

David Lammy: That is amazing: the Conservatives are praising a Labour party policy-which they opposed-for its cost-effectiveness. This debate is beginning to make the Lib-Dem flip-flop on tuition fees look mild in comparison.
	Another new-found concern is the one about young people who are not in education, employment or training. The hon. Gentleman often mentions them, but not the 4.6 million young people who are in work or in full-time education. That is an important figure, because it has risen from 3.9 million, which was the figure in 1997. Of course, at this difficult time for our economy, we are concerned about young people and, particularly, those who are not in employment, but that is why we have to stand by them at this time and not walk by on the other side.
	I ask the hon. Gentleman to think back to the days-I think it was 1984-when he worked in the then Prime Minister's policy unit and the downturn was more severe because of the absence of Conservative proposals. They took the view that the recession and unemployment were a price worth paying. Yet again this afternoon we have heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman about whether he would keep the future jobs fund for young people and whether he supports our September guarantee for young people. They were not even mentioned.
	We heard no proposals at all-other than 10,000 extra student places-to support young people at this time, even though the hon. Gentleman knows that, in any downturn, young people who are a long way from graduation are the people who are most affected. I have yet to hear one Conservative party proposal to support those young people. The hon. Gentleman has not uttered anything and, for a party that is serious about taking power in the upcoming general election, that cannot be acceptable.
	Once more we heard the confused policy concerning 10,000 extra university places in priority subjects for one year. The right hon. Member for Witney repeated it at the beginning of the year, but said nothing about the dead-weight cost of £300 million and the fact that young people are already paying it back. Nothing has been said about that cost; and very importantly, nothing has been said about whether the hon. Member for Havant has received permission from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) to increase public borrowing to meet that extra cost. The increase is inevitable, because the Government borrow the money. The proposal would add to the current deficit, which the hon. Member for Havant says he is against. I see him squirming, because he is not used to not doing his maths, but he would add to the deficit for the taxpayer, and the policy is uncosted.
	There is also the question of who the Conservatives would really help. Which students would be most likely to pay back that money? What constituencies would they be likely to live in? Surely they would be from better-off families. The policy feels like the Conservatives' position on inheritance tax-benefiting the few over the many-and that cannot be a sensible way to proceed.

David Willetts: I should like to make the situation absolutely clear. Extra cash would go to the Exchequer because the policy would involve the early repayment of student loans. The people who would benefit are marginal students who, otherwise, would not have got places at university; and we all know that, sadly, those students are most likely to come from less-advantaged backgrounds. Like so many policies from today's Conservative party, it is a highly progressive measure.

David Lammy: How can another form of borrowing be a highly progressive measure? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is another form of borrowing?

David Willetts: No; it is not.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that it is not, but I must put on the record that that is a mistake. He does not understand the way in which Government finances work, and again the public cannot take that proposal seriously.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the problems that we have had at the Student Loans Company, and I have been at pains to ensure that, on this issue, the House has been kept fully informed at every stage. I shall do so again today. The company informs me that by 11 January, 918,600 students had had their student finance approved. That is 48,000 more than at the same point last year, and I hope that the whole House will join me in welcoming the assurance, which I have received from the company chairman, that he is taking the action that is required to improve the service so that students and their parents receive the service that they rightly expect.
	I know that there has been concern about students who have applied for disabled students' allowance. Just over 19,000 applications have been made this year: 6,000 have been approved; and more than 9,000 await further information from the applicant or the assessment centre. The hon. Gentleman will understand that every year students take into their own hands the process of going to receive their medical assessment, and I hope he recognises that about 70 per cent. of those students present with dyslexia. Many take some time to go through the assessment process, but over the exam period their many requirements prompt them to move quickly through the process.

Fiona Mactaggart: On exactly that point, I have been approached by the mother of an autistic constituent whose travel to the Guildford college where he does a music degree was paid for last year. A taxi driver has taken him to college since last term, but the student has not received his funds and the taxi driver has not been paid. Nobody is asking for more information; the work just has not been done. If the Minister could look at the case, he would really help that anxious student, his anxious mother who has just been diagnosed with an illness and the small taxi company that is losing money because of the problem.

David Lammy: I am happy to ask the chief executive of the Student Loans Company to look specifically into that case. By necessity, all such cases are complex and there is an onus on the company to ensure value for money and probity in the applications that are made. However, my hon. Friend refers to a situation in which the student previously received funds, so I am happy to look into what has happened.
	Importantly, overall we are doing all that we can to help young people during this difficult time. The foundation stone of much of that work is the young person's guarantee, and on that point I should like to clarify our amendment. We announced in December that that guarantee, including the future jobs fund, would be available to young people after six months of unemployment. The £1 billion future jobs fund is part of the Government's overall investment of £5 billion to help young people back to work during the recession. The White Paper, "Building Britain's Recovery", which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions published before Christmas, announced that the young person's guarantee will be extended, so that all 18 to 24-year-olds still unemployed after six months will be guaranteed access to a job, training or work experience. This will be supported by more time with their personal adviser and a proper personalised back-to-work plan.

John Hayes: While the Minister is on the subject of guarantees-and I apologise for drawing him back to the student loans issue-he did not clarify the position for January and February admissions. He will know that a significant proportion of students enrol in those months, so can he give the House an absolute assurance that they will have no problems with their finances?

David Lammy: The process for this year began just before Christmas. It is under way and it is going well at this stage. There is a commitment from the Student Loans Company-from the chair and chief executive, right through the company-to act on the report by Sir Deian Hopkin to ensure that it does not make the mistakes that were made last year in processing and scanning, or in people's inability to contact the company. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman will continue to hold the company to account to ensure that that commitment is honoured.

Rob Marris: My hon. Friend has set out the considerable achievements of this Government in higher and further education and employment for young people. We need to protect research and investment in education and training to hasten the economic recovery and employment, especially in manufacturing. However, how could that be done with a £915 million cut in higher education? Would further education pick up the slack?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend asks a good question-he raised the same issue before Christmas-and if I may, I will come to that point later. We are supporting graduates at this time. We are committed to internships and I am pleased by the level of applications from young people in the graduate talent pool, and the fact that employers are coming forward in their thousands with internship places. The regions are acting to ensure that young people have something to do and can acquire the skills that industry and business say that they need. A range of opportunities is being provided across the country, and the Small Business Federation-as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced-has been able to support our drive to ensure the provision of internships.
	We are also ensuring that there are 24,000 extra places for postgraduate study in the system, as well as more volunteering opportunities and support for young people who want to set up small businesses after graduation.

Gordon Marsden: My right hon. Friend mentioned the importance of the regional dimension in the Government's initiative. I know that the Northwest Regional Development Agency is playing a critical part, together with HE and FE institutions. Does he think that the potential for such action in the future would be helped or hindered by the abolition of RDAs, as suggested by the Opposition?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right that we have relied on RDAs to be responsive to the very different industrial and jobs situations in their areas. They have connections on the ground and have drawn up sector plans and engaged with local authorities. That is not something that can come solely from the centre, and I am surprised and staggered that the Opposition would abolish RDAs, which have done so much to ensure that this downturn has been a lot less severe than it might otherwise have been for young people.

David Davies: I have had eight years of first-hand experience of one of the Minister's RDAs-the Welsh Assembly-and I can assure him that the only jobs created there were for fellow civil servants at very high public sector rates, and with pensions to boot. I hope that I might one day be able to persuade my hon. Friends that not only should they get rid of the RDAs, but they should follow that up with getting rid of the Welsh Assembly, which purports to do the same thing in the Principality-and the Scottish Parliament, too.

David Lammy: The people of Wales, who democratically elected the devolved Assembly, will be offended by that caricature of it as a regional development agency.
	In the grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State issued last month, he asked the university sector to make relatively modest cuts efficiently. The cuts will be made in a way that reduces the impact on front-line services. For example, the planned reduction in funding for teaching is only around 1 per cent. of the overall budget. It is our belief that, in times of pressure, we need to use money effectively. I hope that hon. Members will recognise that families across the country are making cuts to their budgets of much more than 1 per cent.
	The Chancellor, in the pre-Budget report, asks for further savings of £600 million in 2010-11 and 2011-12, but we have not yet had the comprehensive spending review. That will come later in the year, so it is wrong to give the impression that there is a £900 million cut in the next financial year. There is nothing of the kind. There is a saving that the sector has to meet, but there will be a small cut of 1 per cent. in the teaching grant. We are committed to continuing to invest in capital spend to ensure that the infrastructure is in place.
	The Opposition have said that they would make deeper cuts, quicker and sooner. That is what the right hon. Member for Witney said at the weekend. Previously under the Tories we saw unrestricted and unfunded university expansion, with institutions going to the wall, and that is what would happen if they took £610 million out of the HE budget-as they proposed 18 months ago-and if even more severe cuts were made. We would see failing financial support, stagnating student numbers and the undercutting of research and science. I remind the hon. Member for Havant of the Save British Science campaign of those days. That is the absolute opposite of what we have now, with further investment in science and research-

Rob Marris: I am somewhat reassured by what my right hon. Friend has just told the House. However, he mentioned a 1 per cent. cut, and I agree that, while hard, that is belt-tightening for these difficult times. The shadow Minister referred to a 5 per cent. cut in the unit of funding between that for 2007-08, at £4,140, and that for 2010-11, at £3,950. Can the Minister explain the difference, or has the shadow Minister got his figures wrong, trumpeting a 5 per cent. cut when it is in fact a 1 per cent. cut?

David Lammy: The shadow team has got its figures wrong. In the Budget last year, we asked HEFCE to find a cut of £180 million. In addition to that, we asked for a further £135 million cut in the grant letter for this period, which would account for a cut of about 4 per cent. in the overall budget for this financial year. The £600 million is for future financial years, and therein lies the difference. This is set against a backdrop of a 25 per cent. increase in investment, and against a backdrop in which the Government commit more than £12 billion of funding to higher education and the sector is able to raise more than a further £7 billion in investment from private, commercial and charitable sources. It is able to do that because of the investment that we have made previously.

David Willetts: Will the Minister just confirm that the figures that I gave in my speech were directly taken from the annexe to the letter sent to the HEFCE, which showed that the unit of support had decreased from £4,140 to £3,950? Those are not my calculations; they are two figures that appear in the document. They show the 5 per cent. cut to which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) refers.

David Lammy: As I have said, the cuts in the sector amount to the £180 million to which we referred previously and the £135 million to which we are referring now. Of course that affects the unit of resource, but that must be set against a background of further investment. Indeed, we are able to increase that further investment this year, notwithstanding the efficiencies that we have asked of the sector, and that is the point. The picture is very different from the one that we inherited in 1997, which is why we should be proud of the increase in participation and the facilities across the country that have resulted from this Government. We are clear that this sector, like others across the country, has to assist in these difficult times, but it does so against a backdrop of our recognising that higher education is key to future growth and that we must continue to ring-fence science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

John Hayes: I know that the Minister would want the House to understand this fully. He has spoken of a 1 per cent., cut but in answer to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) about the unit of resource he acknowledged that there was a 5 per cent. cut. Is the Minister arguing that other increases mean that there is a net 1 per cent. cut, or was he wrong to start with? The cut cannot be both 1 per cent. and 5 per cent.

David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has failed to listen carefully to what I have said, because I have made the position clear. We are talking about an addition in the grant letter that we issued just before Christmas. Our position stands in direct contrast to the Conservatives' proposals and attitude to higher education in the past, and to the deeper cuts that the right hon. Member for Witney has outlined already.

Fiona Mactaggart: The facts on the ground in my constituency show that we have made a real difference in improving people's skills. We were a long way behind most of our neighbours, but Slough has really made progress. This is not just about the colleges and the local authority; this is about a real partnership between business, training providers and local community organisations, which was initiated by the then Secretary of State with responsibility for universities when we had a skills summit in Slough, and has made real difference. One of the difficulties that we have recently encountered relates to Thames Valley university. It has chosen to relocate out of the town, which has local people-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to say that the hon. Lady is starting to develop her intervention into a speech. If she could now turn it briefly into a question, that would be helpful.

Fiona Mactaggart: The last two words that I said were "what can", and they were the first two words of my question. What can MPs, the Government and local bodies do when an autonomous university takes a decision that damages the opportunities for people in a particular area?

David Lammy: These are rightly matters for the funding councils, and all Ministers have to tread lightly with autonomous institutions. I hope that my hon. Friend has made representations to the relevant funding council. I am happy to look closely at the specifics with regard to Thames Valley university, but I am glad that she recognises the investment that has been made and the threat that exists from the Conservative party, notwithstanding the half-hearted attempts that it has made, yet again, this afternoon to position itself as the party that supports students. With that, I give the Floor to the rest of the House.

Stephen Williams: I do not know whether this is the case for some or most hon. Members, but the 1979 general election is the first that I can remember, so I shall start by discussing a historical point, just to humour the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). That last Labour Government ended with a miserable winter, and a crisis in the economy and in the public finances, so we have been here before. Of course, that was followed by an even worse situation: the recession of the early to mid-1980s, when we saw large-scale industrial shutdowns, mass unemployment and devastated communities, including the one where I grew up in the south Wales valleys. Tragically, many of the people who lost their jobs at that time, particularly if they were over 40, never found meaningful or well-paid employment again.
	Unemployment is rising again at the moment. In my constituency, it has almost reached its level 13 years ago, when this Government came to office. In the neighbouring Bristol constituencies, in particular Bristol, North-West, it has exceeded the level at that time. This recession hits the young in particular, who are the topic of this debate.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman refers to 1979 and what happened subsequently. Does he agree that the savage process of de-industrialisation that began at that time has caused terrible damage to our economy and made it unbalanced, and has meant that there are fewer of the opportunities for apprenticeships and training that manufacturing used to provide?

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said, because I agree with much of it. I particularly agree about the callous indifference shown by the Government of the day to the consequences of their policies. I recall that when I arrived at Bristol university at the end of the miners' strike-arguably the strike made matters worse-I had to explain to many of my new-found friends from other parts of the country what it was like to grow up in a declining industrial area where that decline had been precipitated, and the incline to climb had been made much steeper, almost deliberately as a result of Government policy. We must ensure that we do not fall into that same situation again.

David Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to the grandson of a miner from the south Wales valleys. Can he confirm that Labour in the 1960s, under one Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, shut down far more coal mines than Mrs. Thatcher did in the 1980s?

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not think that we want to spend the entire debate discussing what happened in the '60s, '70s and '80s. We want to focus on what is happening in this second decade of the 21st century.
	Young people are bearing the brunt of this recession. The unemployment rate among 18 to 24-year-olds is in excess of 17 per cent., 40 per cent. of the total number of unemployed people is accounted for by 16 to 24-year-olds and a fifth of young people who are without work have a degree. This is the worst graduate job market for a generation. It is particularly apposite at the moment to remember that this is the first generation of graduates who have left university under the new top-up fees regime, with £9,000 of student debt. I assure the hon. Member for Havant that I shall deal with that point shortly. The recession also compounds the situation of those at the other end of skills achievement who are not in education, employment or training. The number of NEETs is now heading towards 1 million. That truly shocking state of affairs illustrates the stagnation of social mobility after 13 years of a Labour Government.
	We need emergency measures to help the young unemployed, whatever their skill set might be. The Minister mentioned that the Government had already amended their own training guarantee. It was originally set at 12 months, so that anyone over the age of 24 who had been unemployed for 12 months could get training. It is now set at six months. The Liberal Democrats have suggested that there should be a 90-day promise, and that no young person should be unemployed for more than 90 days. We would bridge the gap by offering paid, funded internships. Those unemployed people are being funded anyway by the DWP through their jobseeker's allowance, and it would be much better to pay £55 a week so that they could take up an internship in a company.
	The public sector, including the House of Commons and the rest of the parliamentary estate, could certainly do its bit on that front. There are many things that we could say about internships, and the detrimental effect that they have on social mobility and fair access to some professions, but Parliament could certainly do its bit and give more funding for the interns that we all rely on-

Rob Marris: Not all of us.

Stephen Williams: Many of us rely on them in order to carry out our parliamentary work, and I am on record as saying on several occasions that our budget for resourcing staff placements in Parliament should reflect that. In the present context, paid internships instead of JSA would provide a much more productive and meaningful experience for those young people at what should be the start of their working careers.
	In the longer term, we also believe that there should be more funding for apprenticeship places. There happens to be common ground on this matter between both Opposition Front Benches. We believe that the funding should be found from the Train to Gain budget, especially for the off-the-job training costs of those who are taking up apprenticeships in small and medium-sized enterprises.
	Also in the longer term, there should be a fairer way of funding higher education than simply loading more debt on to students. On that note, I have informed the Speaker's Office and those on both Front Benches that, by sheer coincidence, I am going to give the Liberal Democrats' views to Lord Browne for his review of higher education at 3 o'clock today. I am sorry that I might therefore not be here for the final moments of this debate.
	The hon. Member for Havant took us through what he described as the historical journey of our policy development, but he left out several stages. He mentioned Gladstone, who was at one point the rising hope of the stern and unbending Tories but over the course of his career became the people's William. Political parties-the Liberal party, the Conservative party or the Labour party-are not frozen in aspic, never to develop their policies, have a rethink or respond to circumstances. We all change over time. That was the situation in the 19th century, and it is certainly true of the 21st.
	Political parties have to respond to events and, occasionally, review where they are coming from. I acknowledge that we had difficulties with our own review of higher education policy. We started that policy review in a completely different economic environment, back in 2006-07, and I do not think that any of us really foresaw the economic catastrophe that was going to come our way. We have been honest, however, in saying that we are now not going to be able to say some of the things that we would have liked to say at the next general election. All three parties are going to have to face up to that economic reality.
	On principle, however, I still think that tuition fees are a rotten way of funding higher education. They are unfair to students; it is not good to load people up with debt. If the Browne review, about which I will know a lot more after 3 o'clock this afternoon, leads to increased tuition fees and a market in higher education, many of the things that we have warned about over the past decade will come true, and people will find it increasingly difficult to access higher education.
	We would still like to remove tuition fees; that is our principled stance. We recognise, however, that that cannot be done immediately, at the start of the new Parliament in 2010. Instead, we would phase them out over a six-year period, starting with the people who were in the final year of their degree. That would mean that every student would be better off, having reduced their debt burden by the end of that six-year period. I hope that that clarifies matters for the hon. Member for Havant.

Simon Burns: I am grateful for that clarification. As I understand it, the Liberal Democrats' manifesto commitment will be to phase out tuition fees over six years, rather than to abolish them outright. Is that correct?

Stephen Williams: I am not quite sure what difference the hon. Gentleman is trying to tease out. We would phase out tuition fees so that, at the end of the six-year period, they would be abolished and would no longer feature in the funding mechanism for higher education.

Simon Burns: I am grateful for that sort-of clarification. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is somewhat misleading for a Liberal Democrat press release on 18 December to state:
	"Liberal Democrats renew pledge to abolish tuition fees"?
	It goes on to say:
	"The Liberal Democrats have announced that they will keep their policy of abolishing university tuition fees in their manifesto for the 2010 General Election."
	There is no mention of phasing them out over six years. This is a reiteration of the Liberal Democrats' original commitment to abolish tuition fees. Another thing that surprises me is the disclaimer at the bottom of the press release:
	"The views expressed are those of the party, not of the service provider."

Stephen Williams: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Front Bench or in the Whips Office, or whoever has been feeding him these press releases.
	I repeat that all political parties have to respond to the dire economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. We have made it clear that, on principle, we do not believe that tuition fees are a fair way for students and graduates to contribute to the cost of their higher education. Over time, we would phase out that funding model so that, at the end of six years, tuition fees would form no part whatever of funding for higher education. I do not think that I can be any clearer than that, so I shall now move on to the other elements of my speech.

Simon Burns: rose-

Stephen Williams: I have been quite generous to the hon. Gentleman. I have already given way to him twice, and that is where I am going to end it.

Jim Cunningham: We now understand the Liberal Democrats' stand on tuition fees-or, at least, I think we do. We have a rough idea of what it is, anyway, but the hon. Gentleman has not yet told us what they would do with the outstanding debt.

Stephen Williams: That is an interesting question. At no point-either in 1998, when my party initially opposed the introduction of tuition fees; in 2004, when we opposed tripling them to £3,000 a year; or at the 2005 election, when we said that we were committed to abolishing them-did we say that our policy was retrospective and that we could wipe out the debts that had already been incurred. I do not think that any party would say that. I do not think that we have ever implied that any policy of ours would be retrospective. If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to place that on record now.

Jim Cunningham: I think that the hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding me. I am not trying to twist any policy that the Liberal Democrats are expounding. I am saying that, if they abolished tuition fees, even after six years there would still be an outstanding debt that would have to be either repaid or abolished. I am merely asking him where he stands on that.

Stephen Williams: I do not think that any party could reasonably say that it was going to abolish a debt that had been contractually entered into and incurred for a service in higher education. That is why we are saying that we will phase out tuition fees over six years, starting with final year students, so that there will be no further accumulation of debt. We would not abolish the debts incurred by students who are currently in the system during their first or second year. They would still have to make repayments of that element of the debt. However, as they enter the final year of their degree courses a further £3,000 worth of debt will not be added to the debt that has already accumulated. Over time the next cohort of graduates will be better off, and after six years all graduates will undoubtedly be better off.  [Interruption.]
	I think that I have now said enough about Liberal Democrat higher education policy. I entirely welcome discussions of Liberal Democrat policy, but if Members want to embark on a general discussion, the best way to ensure that that happens is for the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property to lobby the leader of his party, the Prime Minister, and to ask him to call an election. Then we can get on to the hustings and engage in such a discussion.
	I, at any rate, am setting out what my party will offer students at the general election. Both Conservative Front Benchers and the existing Labour Government will be saying to students "Wait and see what happens", rather as people said before the 1924 or the perhaps the 1923 election. They will say "Wait and see what is in Lord Browne's review." I think that students, whether or not they like what is offered by the Liberal Democrats-we recognise that ours is not a perfect solution-will at least give us credit for offering them an alternative rather than saying, as the Conservative and Labour parties will both be saying, "Wait and see what the review comes up with. We are not going to give your generation a meaningful choice."

Brian Binley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Williams: Yes, but this is the last time I shall give way on this subject.

Brian Binley: I am confused, as many people in the country will be. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Liberal Democrats have chosen six years, and will he explain the economic thinking behind that? Is there any special formula which we need to know and which will help my constituents?

Stephen Williams: I think that we have engaged in enough discussion on this subject. We shall welcome the debate when the hustings finally arrive. The hon. Gentleman could have intervened on the hon. Member for Havant at any point to ask exactly what the Conservative party would be saying.

Brian Binley: I have asked you.

Stephen Williams: The hon. Gentleman could have told us what he will be saying to students in his constituency about what the Conservative party is offering. He cannot give a clear answer. At least I have an answer for students.

David Willetts: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one point? Is his party proposing to replace the income that universities will lose if-in some way unspecified-fees are abolished?

Stephen Williams: Yes. It has consistently been our position that the income hypothecated from fees that universities currently receive from the Treasury via the Higher Education Foundation Council for England should continue. In cash terms, there is very little difference in the short term in any event. The Treasury continues to hand over the roughly £3 billion a year equivalent of fee income, and it will be quite a long time before the present generation of graduates repays that money in cash terms. What we are focusing on is, in fact, an accounting difference. By the end of that six-year period we will certainly have found a better way of funding higher education in the long term. As I shall say to Lord Browne very shortly, I hope that his review will take an open-minded approach not just to an extension of the fees model, but to alternative models that have been proposed and are worthy of consideration.
	Let me now leave the subject of central Government, for local government has a role as well. I was pleased to note on Monday this week that Bristol city council, which is now under Liberal Democrat control, has welcomed 19 new apprenticeships in fields as diverse as security services, recycling, finance and the museum service. However, it is not just the state that has a contribution to make. A contribution can also be made by social enterprise, which is a theme that I have raised many times during debates of this sort. I am thinking particularly of organisations such as Aspire, which, in my constituency and elsewhere in Bristol, gives work to people who are not in education, employment or training-as well as recent offenders-in, for instance, ground maintenance, window cleaning and other practical skills.
	That social enterprise and many others would benefit from more flexibility on the part of both central Government and local government in the awarding of contracts. The Government have a multi-billion-pound procurement budget, but far too much of it is spent with large companies rather than small and medium-sized enterprises or social enterprises. Charities also have an important role to play. I have often mentioned Fairbridge, which is based in my constituency, and I recently visited the Bristol Foyer in the city centre. All those organisations work hard to provide young people with an informal route back to learning and employment.
	In the long term, we need to develop a low-carbon economy in which people also have digital skills. Another Liberal Democrat policy that does not receive much attention from the other parties involves the offer of bursaries to enable people to study stem subjects at university. That is important, as is the advice given to children at school on the opportunities that are open to them, so that they know that a career in engineering is not only worth while in itself but an important contributor to the finding of solutions to the challenge of climate change.
	The Conservative motion mentions the Student Loans Company. I hope that the Minister will confirm not only that the existing, or in some cases the new, management of the company has learnt the lessons of the debacle of the past year, but that he is tracking its progress to ensure that the next tranche of applicants do not face the same situation.
	Mention has been made of the £600 million of further cuts in higher education that were proposed in the pre-Budget report. The Minister said that we have not had the comprehensive spending review. That was, of course, the choice of the Government and the Chancellor, rather than the result of some external factor visited on them. However, the pre-Budget report specifically mentioned that those cuts would be imposed on the existing arrangements for student maintenance. Will the Minister clarify what he thinks will happen to student maintenance, and also to the science budget? We are still in the 10-year guarantee period during which the current Prime Minister and the former science Minister, Lord Sainsbury, said that the Government would ring-fence funding for science, yet the pre-Budget report implied that the science budget was one of the options for cuts. If it is not, why did the pre-Budget report imply that it was?
	The pre-Budget report also mentioned two-year degree courses. I am not necessarily conceptually opposed to them, if it is possible for students to complete, say, vocational degree courses in a condensed period of two rather than three years. Foundation degrees already exist on the basis of that principle, and I see no reason why it should not be considered for other degrees. However, we should bear in mind the practical implications, given that this country is a signatory to the Bologna process. Perhaps we could hear from the Government what discussions have taken place about the possibility of a shorter English degree course. English degree courses are already among the shortest in Europe. Surely, if there is to be a fundamental reform of higher education provision, it should be well thought out, and the result of a review rather than a knee-jerk response to what we hope are short-term budgetary pressures.
	The motion also mentions freeing up further education. Last night I was pleased to respond to a speech given by Professor Alison Wolf on the occasion of the launch of her book "An Adult Approach to Further Education" at the Institute of Economic Affairs. Among her many interesting comments was the observation that further education is treated unfairly in this country, particularly in the light of the resources given to higher education. We believe that in the long term there should be a more level playing field, especially when further education is delivered in a further education or community college context.
	In conclusion, we need a fairer system of funding across higher education, further education and apprenticeships. If we are to have that fair and open intellectual-if not financial-market, students must be well informed through receiving impartial advice and guidance. So far in this recession, young people have borne the brunt of our worsening economic circumstances, and they need measures to help them now, but in the long run, it is through education and skills that we can drive social mobility and build a sustainable and prosperous future.

Jeff Ennis: I begin by congratulating the Opposition for once-this is not something I often do-for calling a debate with substance. The subject is very important in all our constituencies and throughout the country. People in Barnsley and Doncaster, the towns I represent, know only too well how difficult it is to come through a recession. We particularly remember the 1980s, of course, when the Thatcher Government decided to close all our pits almost overnight, thereby making 30,000 people redundant at a stroke and consigning a generation of young people to the scrapheap. The catchphrase at that time was that unemployment was a price worth paying.

David Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a significantly larger number of pits were closed under the Labour Government between 1964 and 1970? Why do Labour MPs always forget that?

Jeff Ennis: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, and I shall address it. He mentioned the fact that in the 1960s Tony Benn closed more pits than Mrs. Thatcher and Mr. Heseltine ever did. That is absolutely right, but let me explain the difference. In the 1960s, a lot of the pits that closed were worked out; everybody who has ever been involved in the mining industry knows that a pit has only a specific lifespan before the coal is worked out. All the pits we closed in the 1960s were worked out. I shall give the hon. Gentleman a classic example. My local pit, Grimethorpe colliery, where my dad worked, closed in 1993 under the Heseltine pit closure programme.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to stop the hon. Gentleman, but I should just say that it is the next debate that is about energy security. I think he is in the right debate and has been led astray by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), but it would be good if he could now bring his remarks back to education.

Jeff Ennis: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have been led astray. The hon. Gentleman has drawn the comparison, however, so let me say that when the Grimethorpe pit was closed it had 60 million tonnes of workable coal left, and in the last six weeks of production it made £250,000 profit. What Government of any persuasion would be so insane as to close a pit in such circumstances? I would hope that Opposition Members have learned that lesson from history. From what we have heard from them so far today, it appears that they might have done so, so perhaps their party is now more compassionate.
	This is an important debate, and it gives Labour Members the chance to shine a light on the raft of measures that the Government have introduced since we came to power to support young people in their education, skills and training in times such as the current recession. I wish to focus most of my remarks on the future jobs fund and how we are implementing that in Barnsley, particularly to assist young people with limited qualifications; I am talking primarily about people who would be categorised as NEETs-those not in education, employment or training.
	The FJF was announced in the 2009 Budget, and it forms part of a range of initiatives aimed at reducing benefit claimants in the 18-to-24 age range, under the young persons guarantee. The FJF is one of the largest national jobs programmes, and will create nationally 150,000 new jobs over two years, of which 100,000 are for 18 to 24-year-olds, under the young persons guarantee. Also, 50,000 jobs will be created in areas of high unemployment. The recipients can be of working age, but they must come from an area where unemployment is 1.5 per cent. above the national average, based on the claimant count. These areas are known as hot spots, and the vast majority of wards in my constituency fall into that category. The programme is being managed by the Department for Work and Pensions. Jobs must last for a minimum of six months, be additional and benefit the community, and the Department will pay £6,500 per job created.
	I want to shine a light on the Barnsley scheme, because I consider it to be the Rolls-Royce scheme. It is currently being administered by the Barnsley Development Agency. Barnsley has committed to creating quality, real jobs for up to 12 months, rather than for the minimum of six months. We have achieved that through the local authority and partner organisations deciding to match the DWP contribution; indeed, Barnsley metropolitan borough council is contributing £2.5 million from its own budget to the project. In other words, we are putting our money where our mouth is. Barnsley council is one of only 14 Labour councils left in the country, but after the next elections-the general and local government elections might be held at the same time, in May-there will be a lot more Labour councils, and also the retention of the Labour Government.
	Over the next two years, the council will create 412 jobs, with another 162 provided by partners in the public and voluntary sectors, and it is hoped that a further 40 jobs will come from the private sector. Therefore, a total of 644 such jobs will be created in Barnsley over the next two years. So far, 178 people have started on the programme since it was launched. Barnsley council, through its various departments, already has 149 people, the primary care trust has two, Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust has six, Voluntary Action Barnsley has six, South Yorkshire Joint Secretariat has one, Barnsley college has two, Barnsley Community Build has five, Berneslai Homes-the arm's length management organisation for the council houses in Barnsley-has five, and Priory Campus, in Lundwood in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), has two.
	A unique aspect of the Barnsley scheme is the fact that it is providing wrap-around services to the people being employed under it. That will be the key to its success, and it should be replicated across other schemes. The features of the wrap-around service include the provision of a rapid recruitment service. The aim is to get people on to the scheme within six weeks of the original application, when they have been out of work for, say, 12 months. The scheme is achieving that average, but whereas sometimes people get on it within a week, at other times it can take up to 10 weeks. That is because of the need for Criminal Records Bureau and occupational health checks.
	The scheme also provides a tracker system, which keeps real-time information on the people being employed, such as through real-time returns from employers. The Barnsley Development Agency can keep a record of each individual from the application stage onwards, and it knows where they are in the system-at interview stage or pre-employment stage, perhaps, or near the employment start date.
	Another feature of the scheme is that weekly updates are given on the vacancy profile to all people on the scheme from Jobcentre Plus, to try to get as many of them off the scheme and into jobs as quickly as possible. There is also a pre-employment training day, which is funded by TUC training-that is part of the training for people who fall into the NEETs category-as well as personal mentoring via individual opportunity advisers. An initial assessment is also provided leading to Skills for Life training. Another important feature is vocational training up to national vocational qualification level 2 and training for health and safety qualifications. After three months on the scheme, CV-building and job search opportunities will be provided.
	The Barnsley scheme was the first such scheme to launch in the country, on 5 October in the new civic hall in Barnsley, and more than 160 new employees were welcomed to the world of work by the council leader, Councillor Steve Houghton, and their new employers. For many, this was the first day of work for some considerable time. I had the opportunity to address many of the new employees, and looking at the faces of all those people who had never worked before, it was clear that their first day of work was an emotional occasion. We have generations of people in the workless category. Some are the third generation who have never had jobs. The start of their active employment in the community was a great day.
	Between October and Christmas last year, 178 people gained employment through the future jobs fund, and a further 100 will do so before Easter 2010. The existing candidates all completed an initial assessment that ascertains their current education level and indicates appropriate training. Many started that training after enrolling in Barnsley college. I am glad to see the Minister for Further Education in his place. I pay tribute to him for securing the £30-odd million funding to build the new Barnsley college. I am sure he will remember the sunny day that we had in October last year, when he performed the first sod-cutting of the new campus. That campus will be a fantastic asset to all future learners in Barnsley.
	Many clients are already attending interviews for jobs. I am glad to say that just before Christmas one of the people on the scheme, Miss Bernice Baines, was employed in a full-time capacity by a Department. There are currently 174 people on the programme, 56 of whom are young people, and 122 are from the so-called hot spots to which I referred. The scheme has a target to achieve an equal split between young people and hot spots. There were another 20 new starters before Christmas.
	The Barnsley scheme is acknowledged regionally and nationally as a model of good practice. We understand that our wrap-around support is unique. We strongly believe that that has contributed to our retention rates. Indeed, the Improvement and Development Agency, which is part of the Local Government Association, has been in touch to ask to write up the Barnsley programme as a case study.
	I have witnessed at first-hand the added value that some of those workers are providing. During the past few weeks when we have had snow on the ground in Barnsley, many of those employed by the council in neighbourhood service have been playing a valiant role in clearing the pavements and roads, particularly on the old people's estates, where all our bungalows are, and keeping old people on the move so that they can get to local shops. That has been an added bonus from the scheme.
	As for the next steps, it is obviously important for the scheme to maintain its integrity, from both a client and a partnership point of view. The council is looking to increase partner members in both the private and the public sector and hopes to extend the scheme to a greater range of jobs and opportunities. The council is also trying to attract finance and funding from other funding agencies to support the programme.
	With every scheme, though, there are a number of risks. For example, it is often difficult to find other organisations that can provide match funding so that the scheme can be extended. Another aspect that causes concern in Barnsley is the restriction on engaging the private sector. One of the key criteria is that the businesses involved in the scheme must be of community benefit, such as not-for-profit organisations or social enterprises. Unfortunately, the council has so far been unable to identify any private sector company, but it is engaging with many businesses that are members of the work and skills board in Barnsley. There will be an announcement in the not-too-distant future about some private sector companies employing people on the scheme.
	In my opinion, the scheme is a Rolls-Royce scheme and should be considered by local authorities hoping to have a positive effect on unemployment, particularly among young people in the NEETs category. I am sorry to say that the future jobs scheme might be under threat if we have a Tory Government after the election.
	As we are rather short of speakers in the debate, I will go on a little longer. Moving away from the role that local authorities and central Government can play in helping young people during the downturn, let us consider the vital role that the voluntary sector can play in helping young people through the recession. I shall highlight one such organisation, Citizens Advice, which does outstanding work in all our constituencies. Nationally there are 413 citizens advice bureaux. I have three in my area-one in Doncaster, one in Barnsley and one in Mexborough. I used to be on the management committee of the Barnsley CAB when I was a young councillor in the 1980s, before all the pits closed under Thatcher.
	Every CAB is a registered charity and more than 20,000 of the people involved in the service are trained volunteers. The recession has meant that more young people are looking for opportunities to develop new skills as they find it increasingly difficult to enter education, employment and training. Volunteering for a local CAB gives young people the chance to try out new opportunities and develop skills that will help with college and university courses and in gaining employment.
	As part of the volunteer programme, young people receive training relevant to the role, and in some cases that will lead to a recognised certificate from the CAB. They also receive support from a dedicated supervisor as well as from other volunteers and young people in the bureau. More importantly, they have the chance to make friends. All the volunteers are part of a team and get the opportunity, through social and celebration events, to get to know other young people better. They also feel valued because Citizens Advice listens to young volunteers and has established a youth forum to ensure that young people are at the heart of the projects that it develops. The good news is that nearly one third of the volunteers who leave the CAB service each year use their experience to secure paid employment.
	Citizens Advice has recognised that in the recession it is becoming increasingly difficult for graduates to find employment. Students must gain vital experience to make them stand out if they are to succeed in the jobs market. That is why the CAB has developed a student volunteering programme, which supports students to gain vital experience during the recession. It provides unique, office-based volunteering opportunities that allow students to gain tangible work experience. Many students find that volunteering with the CAB gives them a real insight and a connection with their adopted community. Students will receive training and accreditation for the work that they do, which potential employers see as very beneficial. Hundreds of students volunteer with Citizens Advice every year all over the country.
	Citizens Advice offers specialised volunteering opportunities for students of certain subjects. For example, law students can knock up to six months off their training contract by volunteering as an adviser. Social policy and politics students can see first-hand the kind of issues affecting people on the street, and can work to make a difference. Emerging linguists can practise what they have learned as an interpreter, especially in multicultural communities, though not so much in my constituency, I admit. Public relations or marketing students can volunteer as an event organiser or fundraiser. Citizens Advice has been at the heart of every local community for 70 years, and I am sure it will continue actively to support young people in need throughout the recession and beyond.

Rob Marris: I applaud the efforts of the CAB and other organisations that are driven by volunteers, but does my hon. Friend share my concern at the rise in internships, which tend to be monopolised by the middle class? There is a question over their legality because interns are not paid a minimum wage, and there is a key difference between an intern and a volunteer. A volunteer is someone who approaches an organisation and says, "I'd like to help you," whereas an intern often answers an advertisement for an unpaid job. We should not encourage that.

Jeff Ennis: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will address when he sums up.
	This is a very important debate, from a central Government point of view, as regards what we can do to help young people through the recession, from a local authority point of view, and from a voluntary sector point of view.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that, as often happens in these circumstances, we started off with plenty of time but now the clock is moving swiftly on. Perhaps those Members who are seeking to catch my eye would bear that in mind when they are making their contributions.

Tim Boswell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis), who is always generous and very practical.
	This is an important debate. I should say to the House that one of the reasons why I shall be brisk is that I need to nip out briefly before the conclusion of the debate, but of course I want to hear the Minister wind up. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) for introducing the motion and for the forensic case that he deployed in his criticism of Government policy.
	The House will know that I was formerly a further and higher education Minister, so I cover the whole remit of this debate, as it were. At my stage of a parliamentary career, it is not appropriate to be unnecessarily partisan, except perhaps at the beginning. I will merely say, in view of the difficulties in which the Minister found himself in relation to the current situation, as did the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, that I would use a motto modified from a couple from the past: "If you're in an 'ole, start aspirating." That is how one tries to get out of it.
	I also say to the Minister-I need not give him a completely free ride-that in my experience the Government have plumbed new depths of dysfunction. That applies across the field-whether, at one level, with what went wrong with the further education capital programme or, at another, with the concerns expressed yesterday in  The Guardian, in terms that I never experienced as a Minister, by the Russell group, which said that it might take six months to bring the university sector to its knees-a view that was echoed by the University and College Union. In fact, I felt that that was a little over the top, but there are definitely problems.
	I have been, and remain, concerned about people at the other end of the spectrum, specifically NEETs-those not in education, employment or training-and those who have learning difficulties or are without the necessary basic skills. In the first place, the House needs to understand the impact of recessionary pressures, which create what I would call a concertina effect. Graduates who are having difficulty in getting jobs may trade down to do less demanding jobs, below level 4, and in the process-it will not be their intention-tend to squeeze out of employment altogether those who are less well qualified. They will be under-fulfilling their potential while cutting off the potential for others.
	We cannot deal with the problem of NEETs without reaching back into the school system and improving opportunities outside the conventional routes of the academic world from year 7 onwards. I am pleased to see the Minister for Further Education acknowledging that. That must be accompanied by proper independent guidance and mentoring, as people need help. We still need to devise-we have been saying this for 50 or 100 years-an examination and qualifications structure that complements the traditional royal road through A-levels and on to university with an alternative credible route involving proper concentration on subjects with an emphasis on at least part-vocational diplomas locked in with apprenticeships, without closing off the routes to progression. At all stages, certainly after year 11, we need greater hands-on involvement by potential employers-that also applies as people move on to continued education-and they may have to help to finance the process. There must be a common understanding of the best financial frameworks that we can afford to support learning, matched by a coherent set of qualifications.
	I have spoken elsewhere about this, and I think it is no secret that I am something of a radical in this regard. I want a national qualifications framework, on which the Government are at last making some progress, I want a credit system, and I want the support system eventually to move into that area, although we will have to wait for the Browne report before we come to a final view on that. Above all, we must not switch off thinking about doing this in the recession-we need to use it as a springboard to development. The key themes of the system should be coherence, something for everyone, and flexibility in that no administrative, financial or qualification hurdle should frustrate those who, at whatever level they find themselves, want to build a career or simply-we should not forget this-enjoy the merits of education itself to lead a more fulfilling life.
	One of the more interesting and challenging hours that I have spent recently was with a group of NEETs in my constituency. Frankly, when we started I was a bit apprehensive as to how we were going to get through the hour, but it turned into a quite rewarding dialogue. Of course, I remained aware of the problems before us, but there was a belief developing that they were not insuperable, provided that as a society we are prepared to put in the time-the golden element that we often forget-to provide sympathetic support and mentoring and to treat people, whatever their level, as individuals with their own strengths, weaknesses, needs, opportunities and potential.
	I want to close my brief remarks by addressing two issues of principle that I have long embraced, which we will continue to need to have validated long after we have put the recession behind us. The first is the gross misconception that learning activity is either academic or "vocational", as if the professional classes have no practical skills and the sons of toil have no need of anything but the essential, elementary manual skills. Under the pressures of the recession, matters are made much worse by the understandable demands of employers, who say, "I'm short: send me six brickies," or six typists-whatever it may be-as though people with vocational skills were not better employees if they had an educational hinterland.

Lorely Burt: Several hon. Members have spoken about the importance of skills for manufacturing. Is it not a fact that we are leading the world in many aspects of manufacturing because we are able to combine the academic and the practical in terms of our skills mix in that sector?

Tim Boswell: I am grateful for that intervention. I am lucky enough to have a large chunk of the Formula 1 industry, and Silverstone itself, in my constituency. These are brilliant people: they have not come up through grand academic routes, but they have fantastic application. They are highly skilled-some of the best in the world-and amazingly articulate, confident and successful people in a team. That is exactly what we are looking for.
	We do not just need the one-off, simple, basic skill sets-we need hinterland as well. That may come through formal qualifications or through experience, but it needs to happen. I have seen, as many of us will have done, young people come alive through well directed vocational learning programmes, particularly when they are accompanied by good mentoring that, ideally, pulls these people through the process and motivates them, with some assurance from employers that they will take them on when they have achieved qualification. The modern work force of the future will need people with those core skills, the ability to work together, and the confidence to do their own thing and adapt to changing conditions. We are not creating automata or a mass work force, but people who can think and act for themselves.
	That brings me to my final substantive point, which is about the need for progression. Of course, we all represent the aspirational classes. We take it as a matter of course that we want our children and grandchildren to progress and succeed, but why should any of us think of the NEETs as having a different agenda of their own? The problem is that in the present circumstances, it is difficult to make a plausible static case for their re-engagement with the labour market. Without unreasonable measures, or sanctions that we have not contemplated, the difference between staying a NEET and taking a dead-end job is unlikely by itself to change motivational behaviour. It is only when we can throw in the prospect of job enrichment through training, leading to greater responsibility and probable eventual promotion, that employment really becomes worth while. I remember the powerful American phrase, which I have often heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, "Start with a job, move to a good job, get on to a career." That is how we should be thinking.
	There has been some talk about consensual politics. The House will know that I am essentially a one-nation Tory and have been for many years, but we will not make progress towards one nation, however we define it, if we continue to treat any one group as persistently "other", or as some phenomenon or problem rooted in the cares of the moment, great though they currently are. We must consider people's personalities, minds and motivations. A learning society, which we would all like, assumes progression from the years of compulsory school-that is the easy bit-towards a society in which people, as individuals, are supported into work and through their careers as much as they need to be. Those careers develop a society, and the economy develops and changes.
	There is always a struggle to resource that, and not just in a recession, but equally there is a great prize to be gained. People should not have just a narrow range of evanescent skills to do the job that they have today. We need to build a wider and good society in which nobody need feel ill-equipped, marginalised or unable fully to participate. Fortunately, this is one of those happy situations in which the prudential case, the educational case and, let us face it, the moral case coincide.

David Davies: The Government have today once again set out the narrative that they have built up during the recession of the past year or so. The narrative that they like to put forward is something like this: "The recession was nothing to do with us. It was all caused by other people. Thanks to our wonderful Prime Minister it has now been sorted out in this country, and we will shortly be returning to growth." That is the message that they want young people to hear.
	However, young people are not fooled, and they know that the reality is very different. It was summed up by the headline in the business section of  The Sunday Times this week, which on the face of it was quite positive. It was something along the lines of, "City confident that Britain will keep its triple A rating". However, on reading a little of the article it became clear that the City was confident about that only because it is certain that after the general election, whoever wins will have to take urgent steps to reduce public spending.
	The Government may try to maintain that the recession has now passed over and that we are coming out of it, but it is very possible that the recession proper has not even begun yet. It was caused by policies that were partly the fault of the Government, such as not regulating the banks properly, and made worse by the fact that they failed, even during the times when the economy was growing, to spend what they were taking in taxation. It will be made considerably worse by the fact that with one last throw of the dice, one last gamble, they decided to borrow billions upon billions of pounds-something like £180 billion-to try to keep the party going before the general election. That is what will concern young people in the years ahead, and it is right that it should. Whoever wins the next general election, the news will be very bad.
	Of course, the reality has been disguised from many people, partly because of the failings of the education system, which should have delivered the high-tech work force that we need to thrive in a globalised economy. We have heard great rhetoric today about what the Government have done for young people and graduates, but the reality is that one in four people still leave their primary school unable to read and write properly. One in four are not getting any GCSEs at grade C or above, and one in six 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training. It was a Labour Government who promised us a welfare state that would look after people from the cradle to the grave, but in education they have delivered a failure from the nursery to the bursary.  [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to Ministers if they wish to intervene.

Kevin Brennan: Would the hon. Gentleman care to give us the figures for 1997, so that we can compare them with the figures that he is complaining about so powerfully?

David Davies: I shall come on to what I think the Minister alludes to. I do not have the figures to hand, but what he alludes to is important. He will attempt to suggest through statistics that more people are now getting higher levels of exam qualification, which is certainly true on paper. The fact of the matter is that virtually everyone who takes exams these days seems to pass them, which certainly did not happen in 1997.
	Two possible reasons have been suggested for that. One is that the exams have become easier and the other is that pupils these days are much cleverer than pupils used to be 10 years ago. I have my views about that, but let us be generous to the Ministers, who are hopping up and down now. Let us assume that the reason why more people are getting higher grades in their GCSEs and A-levels is nothing to do with the fact that the Government have downgraded exams, even though there is plenty of evidence to suggest that that is exactly what has happened. I still say to them that it is wrong that virtually everyone who takes the exams passes them, whether at GCSE or A-level. It is impossible for the universities, and beyond that employers, to distinguish those who are good from those who are very good.
	The point of an exam should not be to make people feel good about themselves. It should be partly so that people understand their strengths and weaknesses, so that employers can understand who is likely to fit into a particular role and so that universities can pick and choose the best people for the courses that they offer. The Minister should ensure, if he gets the opportunity over the next few months-I do not think he will after that-that exams are properly set so that we can understand who is good, who is very good and who is no good at all.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of disappearing into the vortex of his own illogical representations. A minute ago he was complaining about the fact that not enough people were passing exams, and now he is saying that too many pass exams. Which is it?

David Davies: That is a very good question, but the reality is that at the moment people who are unlikely to pass are simply not put in for the exams. That is why one in four people do not get a grade C or above. Generally, all those who are put in for the exams come out with some sort of qualification. That is the clever use of statistics and targets that the Government are so very good at. The Minister cannot deny that one in four people are not getting a grade C or above, or that there has been a huge increase in the number of people gaining As and Bs. It is he who needs to be making explanations.
	I happen to believe that the Government have failed to impose proper standards in schools. That view has been reflected by employers, who have complained that even graduates who have come to them do not understand basic English or maths. Some companies have actually had to teach people how to write letters. A member of the public walking into the House of Commons is greeted with a sign that says, "Visitors Entrance". Where is the apostrophe? It is not there. Who wrote these things? Perhaps it is because I am rapidly approaching 40 that that sort of thing irritates me. We cannot even get our grammar right in the mother of all Parliaments, so how do we expect people leaving schools to do so? What sort of example are we setting?
	We need to go back to the basics in schools and get rid of all this politically correct stuff, with people sitting around their desks chatting to each other. What is wrong with people learning by rote, in rows, one behind the other? What happened to the three R's in schools-reading, writing and arithmetic? They have been replaced by the three C's-cultural studies, climate change and, for five-year-olds in primary school now, carnal knowledge. That is absolutely disgraceful.
	We need to get rid of the sham degrees that allow people to spend three or four years doing such things as surfing studies or game theory. I once thought that that might refer to the respected branch of economics, but it is literally about understanding the differences between Playstations and Xboxes, as far as I can see. That course is actually being offered in one higher education institute in London, which is absolutely disgraceful. We are not going to pull ourselves out of recession and help young people by setting an artificial target of sending 50 per cent. of them to university if they are going to come out with those Mickey Mouse degree qualifications that will mean nothing to employers.
	What about ensuring that people can be respected for gaining vocational skills? I have letters after my name: I am David Davies HGV class 1, a graduate of the Heads of the Valleys school of motoring, Gilwern 1992! That qualification enabled me to have four years of gainful and very well paid employment as a contract driver at Lucas Girling. That is nothing to be ashamed of; I am very glad I did it because I do not think I would have benefited at that age from a university education. I believe we should give all the support we can to those who would benefit from such an education, but we cannot put 50 per cent. of the population into university and think there will be no cost to the people concerned who will rack up bills, or to taxpayers who pay £10,000 a year to fund those courses.
	If we are going to get Britain out of the recession, we need to start matching the skills that are needed by employers to the skills that are offered by universities and training courses. I do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that hundreds of thousands of people are coming into this country from eastern Europe and beyond. My wife is from eastern Europe, so I am in no way prejudiced about that, but it irritates me that all the jobs for plumbers, carpenters, electricians and other skilled tradesmen are being taken by people who have come here from other countries because nobody in this country is qualified to do them. At the same time we have graduates in things such as surf study management who cannot get a job. Surely I am not alone in thinking that that is the policy of madness-many young people and employers can see that too. They are going to be coming out at the next general election to vote and campaign to ensure that the next generation of young people are educated under Conservative policies, so that we have a work force who are able to compete in a globalised economy, and who have the ability to drag us out of the recession that this Government did so much to get us in.

Brian Binley: I want to stay with the very narrow point of the relationship between skills training and the workplace. This issue concerns me greatly and I have spoken about it in the House on a number of occasions. I make no apology for the fact that I come from a business background. I have been a business manager for 40 years, and I can tell the House that business increasingly relies upon employees with high literacy and numeracy skills. Therein lies a serious problem. Fifty per cent. of employers or thereabouts are dissatisfied with the quality of the training and education of the school leavers whom they meet.
	Literacy and numeracy training begins at primary school. It is worrying and frightening to learn that each year, about 120,000 children leave primary school unable to read and write properly. The Government are aware of the problem and are working on it, but it is already seriously inconveniencing the futures of many of our young children. We must crack that problem. Otherwise, talk of further skills training is almost meaningless: if kids cannot add up or read properly, the difficulties of training them later are considerably enhanced. That is my first point.
	I will not say much about NEETs-people not in employment, education or training, about whom much has already been said-but I will make the point that Britain's future is to an immense extent tied up with having people who are skilful enough to work in the hi-tech, highly skilled businesses that will create for Britain what I hope will be a more interesting and wealthier future when the upturn comes. I must tell the Government, as businesses will tell them, that the upturn has not yet happened. Frankly, we do ourselves no favours by saying that the recession has ended.

Lorely Burt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian Binley: I normally would, but I do not have very much time.
	We need a knowledge-based economy, to ensure that those hi-tech, highly skilled jobs that we could produce in manufacturing are produced, and that the opportunity is exploited. We have a real opportunity. Manufacturing jobs are coming back, because the level of skill and technical knowledge is increasing greatly in certain areas of the sector. We need to be able to exploit that, which means training people, which in turn means colleges of further education. However, to my mind , Governments of both hues have neglected and failed to enhance FE colleges properly in the past 20 years. The building programme that is under way is immensely welcome, and I recognise that in that respect, there is some hope for the future. However, this is about not only the buildings but what happens inside them, which is so important.
	I spoke to a very fine principal of Northampton college of further education-which, I am delighted to say, is a recipient of the Government programme to enhance our FE infrastructure. His name is Len Closs. He is a highly skilled and experienced teacher, and leads and runs a very effective and important college in Northampton. I asked him what he thought we needed to take on board if we were to move forward, and he said:
	"Firstly, to recognise that learners are individuals with their own talents and abilities...This implies further development of training curricula to avoid 'one size fits all' and to address differentiation in learners' needs and employers requirements...Secondly, Skills Trainers must have a passion for the subject and the skill to inspire others to want to achieve. This implies the need to ensure that high quality practitioners continue to be encouraged to come into training and that employers continue to give access to opportunities in the workplace alongside enthusiastic practitioners."
	In other words, he is telling us that the human relationship between pupil and teacher lies at the heart of good skills training, which indeed it does; it lies at the heart of education generally, but I am focusing particularly on skills training. We need to learn lessons from what heads of further education colleges tell us, and I hope that Ministers have heard those comments.
	In conclusion, colleges are vital to inform us about how to solve the problem of skills training, and we need to listen to their recommendations; that is the first piece of advice that I would give the Government. Secondly, we need to develop good literacy and numeracy skills at the base of our educational structure, for without those we will not succeed.
	Thirdly, vocational and skills training should be workplace-driven, and local businesses should motivate, direct and be involved with local vocational problems. All too often, vocational training is created by educationists-although that does not happen in Northampton, I am delighted to say. We need business to be involved in the process if we are to be successful. All too often, ill-designed packages are being created and delivered away from the workplace, and they are distant from the ethos and culture of the working environment.
	I could go on, but time forbids; it is right and proper that I should give the Front-Bench spokesmen the time in which to sum up. But I want to encourage the Government to understand the importance of outreach, of bringing in businesses to help create the training programmes, and of training in the workplace.
	Most of all, we should ensure that we have skills trainers who are inspired to train and can make that vital connection, on a one-to-one basis, with those whom we are letting down at the moment-the NEETs. They are best handled by inspirational people in colleges of further education, to ensure that we put right the mistakes that we have made earlier, in primary education. It is a very tough job, but if we do not face up to it and make the advances that we need to make, we will not be in a position to exploit the high-tech opportunities that I believe Britain can exploit when the upturn comes. That means increasing our manufacturing base, which is so important to us.

John Hayes: W. B. Yeats said:
	"Education is the lighting of a fire".
	In Britain today, however, there are people whose fire has been extinguished: the young people who are out of education, untrained, left behind and with little prospect of a fulfilling job. I am talking about an army-one might say a "forgotten army"-of 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. They are a generation of broken lives and shattered dreams-but the tragedy is not only personal to them.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who began the debate, pointed out, the situation is a tragedy for our nation as a whole, and a growing burden on the state. The Prince's Trust estimates that the cost of the growing forgotten army is about £3 billion a year. We know that if a young person's first experience of the labour market is of unemployment and failure, that can leave deep scars of disadvantage. As the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) pointed out, prospects can be damaged for a whole lifetime.
	The problem is not caused simply by the recession. Youth unemployment rose in the last decade, even when unemployment overall was falling. As the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams) said, the number of NEETs has remained stubbornly and unacceptably high throughout the lifetime of this Government. Instead of more young people being helped to enter skilled employment, most new jobs have gone to people born overseas. It is not ethically sustainable that, at a time when more and more British young people, of all kinds and from all origins, are finding themselves unable to get a job and access training, we should be importing so much foreign labour. The OECD says that seven in 10 jobs created since 1997 have been filled by foreign workers.
	That might have led one to suspect that the Minister would speak at the beginning of the debate with a degree of contrition, and that he would be in the mood to apologise or concede. But no-we heard a mixture of windy rhetoric and partisan bombast. I have to say that I am disappointed in the Minister-and it all comes after years of spin and debt. We simply cannot go on like that, and he knows it. We must lay the foundations for a stronger, broader-based economy by providing real opportunities to young people.

Rob Marris: Given that such a high proportion of foreign workers come from other member states of the European Union, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that we revisited the question of the free movement of labour within the EU?

John Hayes: That is a different subject for a different day. I do agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to boost apprenticeships; I know that he and the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough are advocates of the apprenticeship system. They will know that in 2007 a report on apprenticeships by the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs concluded that many who would benefit from an apprenticeship were not doing so, mainly because of the severe shortage of places. Again, it is time that Ministers came clean.
	We might have expected an admission of falling apprenticeship numbers. In the fourth quarter of last year, we saw a fall in the number of apprenticeship starts. We did not hear about that when the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property spoke. The figures are worse than has been suggested. The fact is that all of the increase in the number of apprenticeships over the past decade has been a result of converting other forms of training into apprenticeships. That is precisely what the Lords Economic Affairs Committee's report said in 2007.
	Ministers like to count the number of apprentices in terms of apprenticeship starts, so when the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs sums up, will he confirm that at the beginning of the decade there were 84,500 advanced apprenticeship starts at level 3, and that by the end of the decade that number had fallen to less than 80,000? The number of level 3 apprenticeship starts-that is the level at which all apprenticeships were once defined, and below which a position would not be regarded as an apprenticeship in other countries-

Kevin Brennan: rose-

John Hayes: The Minister can confirm that when he sums up, I hope, rather than interrupting my rather attractive rhetorical flow at this moment.
	The Government failed because they failed to engage employers. It is time to change. A Conservative Government will make it much easier for companies to run apprenticeships. The Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property invited us to give a description of our policies. We never resist that kind of invitation, so let me remind him what those policies are. We will tighten the apprenticeship frameworks so that they are relevant to each sector of the economy, we will cut the bureaucracy that surrounds apprenticeships, we will pay employers directly for the training they provide, we will boost the apprenticeship programme by almost £800 million in support from Train to Gain to help those most in need and, because we know that small and medium-sized enterprises need extra support, we will pay an apprenticeship bonus of £2,000 for each apprenticeship at an SME.
	As the Minister should know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant pointed out at the beginning of the debate, we will also introduce an all-age careers service so that people get the right advice about the right opportunities to be trained and educated. We will also put in place special additional support for NEETs, through a NEETs fund. Those are tangible, costed real policies. I do not know whether the Minister had not heard about them before today, but I know that he will go home a happier man for having done so.
	The House of Lords inquiry on apprenticeships concluded that one of the biggest barriers to young people's participating in apprenticeship training was the lack of basic skills, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley). Ofsted told the inquiry that a conservative estimate would be that 300,000 16 to 19-year-olds were unable to access apprenticeships because of a lack of basic skills. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, we need to build a pathway that helps more young people into apprenticeships and skilled employment. We need a programme of pre-apprenticeship training, with key skills such as numeracy and literacy embedded in learning a trade. That will demonstrate to young people the importance of such skills to their working life.
	For the hard core of NEETs, who will at first need to take small steps back into learning and employment, we will establish extra FE college places every year. There will be 50,000 new places each year in colleges that are liberated-freed from the stifling bureaucracy that was identified by Andrew Foster in a report for the Government years ago, yet the Government have done so little about it. From new college courses through pre-apprenticeship training and real work-based apprenticeships to higher apprenticeships and foundation degrees, I want to build a ladder of opportunity that will be respected by learners and valued by employers.
	The House would be disappointed if I did not say a brief word about the student loans crisis that was rightly identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant as a fundamental failure on the part of this Government. That is not merely the view of Members on the Opposition Benches or of critics of the Government on their own Benches. The report that the Government commissioned concluded that the Department itself was in part to blame, because of the confusion that it caused by moving the goalposts every time the Student Loans Company tried to organise its affairs.
	I want to elicit from the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs, when he sums up, some answers to specific questions. It is immensely regrettable, as I am sure that he realises, that, as the review revealed,
	"new students...have experienced real and significant problems in applying for financial support".
	I wrote to the Minister for Higher Education and Intellectual Property just before Christmas. I did not want to spoil his turkey dinner, but I felt that these questions needed to be answered. I am disappointed to say that I have still not had a reply, and so I hope that the Minister for Further Education, Skills, Apprenticeships and Consumer Affairs will answer these questions.
	On 10 December last year, Ministers indicated to the House that the backlog in cases would be cleared by the weekend of 12 December. Will the Minister confirm whether that was the case. If it is not, why not?
	Will institutions that have used access to learning funds to cover the gap between students applying for and receiving loans receive support from either the Higher Education Funding Council for England or the Department? Does the Minister accept the conclusion of an independent review that many students missed the published deadlines for applications because they were not clearly stated or well publicised, and not well understood by applicants. Perhaps he could repeat what his ministerial colleagues have said: that the Government are offering a guarantee that there will be no January admissions crisis. It would be wrong were the House to learn later that the lessons had not been learned, and that students applying for admission to colleges and universities in January and February had faced the same difficulties as their predecessors.
	Will the Minister give an absolute assurance that there will be no crisis this year? He has had long enough to give such an assurance, and the House wants to hear it. He knows what my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) reminded him: the Government have failed. They have failed to reduce the number of those not in education, employment or training, to expand real apprenticeships and to help more disadvantaged people into university.
	I want to deal with two points that the Minister raised. He will be familiar with the Higher Education Statistics Agency's performance indicators that were referenced in the 2006 Dearing report. However, the indicators remain stubbornly similar to those in the report, which revealed that working-class participation in universities had increased by just 1 per cent. since 1995. Participation programmes such as Aimhigher, on which the Government spent more than £2 billion a year, have produced a 1 per cent. increase in participation by working-class students.
	I am not saying that we do not need to advise and guide, which is why we want an all-age careers service, and I am not saying that we do not need to address that problem, which is why we want to look at modes of learning, access points to learning and all the other ways in which we can widen participation-widening participation is top of my agenda. Let us not live in cloud cuckoo land though, but consider and address the facts, and see what we can do to change them.
	I seek some clarity on one other matter, because the House would expect it to be on the record: the success or failure of Train to Gain. The Minister knows that the 2009 NAO report concluded that
	"the programme has not provided good value for money",
	that the dead-weight cost was about 50 per cent., and that many employers said that they would have arranged the training anyway, although that would not necessarily have resulted in a qualification. Train to Gain is immensely cost ineffective-and Ministers know it.
	We have had a decade of failure-millions of shattered dreams and broken lives. Labour Members know that but are embarrassed to admit to it. They are too timid to own up and too faint-hearted to challenge. Indeed, if Labour MPs had populated the Bounty, there would not have been a mutiny and Captain Bligh would have got away with his punitive regime. Well, we will not let the Government continue to punish Britain's youth and Britain's future any longer. It is time for those who have failed to step aside and let those with perseverance and passion step forward, to let Britain grow and to bring new hope, jobs and opportunity. The Government are out of ideas, they are out of good people, they are out of tune, out of step and out of line-and very soon they will be out of office, too.

Kevin Brennan: This has been a most enjoyable debate, not least during the last contribution. Members' contributions have been of a high standard, as is often the case in such debates.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) on his speech. He has had to attend a Select Committee, which is why he is not in his place now. However, he gave us an example of what is going on in Barnsley, which is an exemplar for the rest of the country in terms of skills.
	I would also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies). He knows that, personally, I like him immensely. He is a proper Tory, and we heard the authentic voice of the Conservative party in his contribution this afternoon. However, given his traducing of the training for the games industry, I should point out that it is now larger than the music industry in this country. The hon. Gentleman rather reminded me of John Lennon's Aunt Mimi, who advised him not to go into the music business because it was a complete waste of time.
	I also congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley), who made a thoughtful and interesting contribution. He rightly recognised the value of the capital programme at the further education college in his area, from which his constituency has benefited, and the importance of jobs in the manufacturing industry.
	That leads me to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who as ever made a highly thoughtful and intelligent contribution. He sits on the board of the university in my constituency, and a welcome board member he is, with the experience and wisdom that he brings. He spoke about the importance of the modern work force and modern manufacturing-I think that the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) intervened at that point. He mentioned the Formula 1 industry in his constituency and the fact that this is still a great manufacturing country-the sixth most important in the world-with a high level of skills.
	That triggered off in my mind a story told by my predecessor, who until quite recently was the First Minister of Wales, about the plane involved in the miracle on the River Hudson. Captain Sullenberger, in a display of great heroism and skill, landed the plane on the Hudson. When the passengers got out and stood on the wings, which saved their lives, they were standing on wings that had been manufactured here in the UK, in north Wales. That is an example of the great British modern manufacturing that is out there around the world. We forget that. Frankly, hon. Members in all parts of the House do not blow our trumpet loudly enough when it comes to the great manufacturing industry that we still have in this country. It is right that this Government have a policy of industrial activism to develop that manufacturing industry further, through our "New Industry, New Jobs" policies.
	The speech made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was immensely enjoyable, as his speeches almost always are. They are not always entirely illuminating, but they are always hugely enjoyable and humorous. As ever, he included a poetry quotation. On this occasion it was from Yeats; if I remember correctly, on the previous occasion when we debated in the House he quoted Eliot. Perhaps I could quote for him another great lyricist-Madonna-and say that we have "heard it all before".

David Evennett: The Minister is dumbing down.

Kevin Brennan: I am not dumbing down, and that is an unfair accusation. I could quote poetry-my wife is a poetry editor-but we have indeed heard it all before.
	Beyond that rhetoric-the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings accused my right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher Education of windy rhetoric and partisan bombast; there were elements of kettle, pot and black in that remark. The Opposition motion asks three fairly important questions. First, should we be expanding apprenticeships, as we are doing? Secondly, should we be reducing bureaucracy for FE colleges, as we are also doing? Thirdly, should we be offering record numbers of university places? Again, that is exactly what we are doing right now, with 43 per cent. of young people going on to university. Let us look at those questions in a little more detail in the time available.
	Despite what the hon. Gentleman said-he did not allow me to intervene to make this point-the expansion of apprenticeships is a remarkable story. It is a success story for the Government and for the country. It is not unfair to say that apprenticeships were withering on the vine before this Government came into power. There were 240,000 apprenticeship starts in 2008-09, which, despite what he said, is the largest number ever. He also complained and asked whether I could confirm that the number of higher-level apprenticeship starts in 2008-09 was below 80,000. No, I cannot confirm that, because the figure in 2008-09 was 81,400-it was more than 80,000, not less, as he implied.

Brian Binley: The Minister talks about apprenticeship starts. Will he tell us about the attrition level? How many of those people do not conclude their courses?

Kevin Brennan: I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman asked me that, because the success rate for apprenticeships last year rose by 6 per cent. to 70 per cent. That is more than double what it has been previously. That is a remarkable success story and a remarkable rate of growth. As I have said, the motion is inaccurate in stating that there has been an overall fall in the number of apprenticeship starts. The rate is remarkable for a time of recession, given that apprenticeships are essentially work-based training. We all have to acknowledge the challenges that economic downturn and recession bring for the younger age group, particularly 16 to 18-year-olds, who are especially badly hit during a recession. That is exactly why the Government have taken all the measures that we have in relation to young people.
	I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), who deals with the under-19s, is present. We have done a lot to try to assist that age group, including through the September guarantee, which the Opposition have consistently refused to match. Neither the Conservative Front Benchers who are present today nor those in the Department for Children, Schools and Families shadow team have committed to the September guarantee. We brought in the January guarantee to make sure that people can enter employment training if they are unable to find work or other forms of training, and that is exactly why we are also introducing a £2,500 incentive for employers to support 5,000 new apprenticeship places for 16 and 17-year-olds now. As I have been able to say, thanks to the intervention of the hon. Member for Northampton, South, we are now hitting record completion rates for apprenticeships that are well over double what they used to be. Despite what the Opposition say in their attempts to downplay apprenticeships and to make out that they are something like those under the youth training scheme, which was the Conservatives response to youth unemployment, they are quality apprenticeships with a high level of success, and the young people who undertake them make great achievements.
	Apprenticeships are just one of the four national learning pathways that we have introduced for 16 to 18-year-olds. The Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 will ensure that apprenticeship places are available for all suitably qualified young people by 2013. We anticipate that one in five young people will undertake apprenticeships in the next decade. They will be a key route to bringing us out of the economic downturn, and it is vital that we continue to invest in young people in that way. As I have said, the take-up of apprenticeships continues to rise, and the number of completions has smashed all previous records. We have hit our public service agreement target on apprenticeships two years ahead of target, so I shall not take any lessons on this issue. In our recent "Skills for Growth" White Paper, as part of the national skills strategy, we have committed to having 35,000 new places for 19 to 30-year-olds in higher-level apprenticeships in the next two years. We have introduced group training models so that smaller businesses can work together to provide apprenticeships, and that approach has the potential to develop another 15,000 places in the next few years. We have also committed £5 million for the development of new frameworks at levels 3 and 4, so the Opposition's charge about higher-level apprenticeships is completely unfounded.
	The hon. Member for Havant talked about progression, which is an important issue. He talked about the report of the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and the importance of trying to inspire apprentices to build their skills up to the higher education level. We have committed-again in the skills strategy-to introduce an apprenticeship scholarship fund from the autumn, and we are currently working through the details of that undertaking.

John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?

Kevin Brennan: By asking me to give way, the hon. Gentleman must be implying that my rhetoric is not as good as his rhetoric, because he gave the quality of his rhetoric as a reason not to give way to me.  [ Interruption. ] I am, indeed, nicer, but I am going to carry on for a moment.
	The second charge in the Opposition's motion was about bureaucracy. We are doing a great deal to reduce bureaucracy in FE colleges. In our investment strategy and in our "Skills for Growth" paper, we have clearly indicated the types of measures that we are taking to reduce bureaucracy. Good and outstanding colleges no longer have to be inspected every two or three years, but every six years. Good and outstanding colleges may now choose to switch their money-to "vire", to use the technical term-right across their budgets and they are subject to much-reduced audit. Indeed, all colleges, not just good or outstanding ones, can now switch their expenditure within their budget headings on learner-responsive and employer-responsive budgets, and we have reduced the number of agencies that they have to talk to. It is not true that the Government are not making progress on reducing bureaucracy, on which we should be constantly vigilant. We are determined to carry on with that simplification agenda and to carry on reducing bureaucracy.
	The number of students is the third element of the Opposition motion. The Opposition called on us to clarify matters about the Student Loans Company, and I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the backlog has been cleared and that we have accepted the terms of the review, which I was asked about earlier. I cannot guarantee the hon. Member for Havant that there will not be a crisis this year, however, as according to some bookmakers, there could be a Conservative Government this year. If that happened, I could not guarantee that there would not be a further crisis. Nevertheless, the measures that we have taken and our acceptance of the Hopkin report's recommendations will go a long way towards improving the situation.
	I cannot leave the subject of extra student numbers without once again referring to the proposal in the Opposition motion to create 10,000 extra places for students next year. The hon. Member for Havant said that he could raise £300 million from getting 1 per cent. of the money returned to the Government as part of his programme. He said that he would get that money by offering a discount to those who repaid early. Well, earlier in 2008-09, £300 million was already paid back early. If his proposal were adopted, he would have to pay, with his 10 per cent. discount, £30 million to people who were going to pay the Government back anyway. That £30 million dead-weight cost would be needed in order to work the little three-card trick that he has developed to avoid facing the fact that funding extra places means providing the money.
	I advise the hon. Member for Havant to go and see his hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). When he goes into his hon. Friend's room, he should tell him to sit down and take the weight off his feet for a moment, and explain that what he really needs to do if he wants to create extra student places is decide to spend the money necessary to provide them. If he wants to do that, he is going to have to borrow the money. Alternatively, the hon. Gentleman could tell the shadow Chancellor that he wants to spend £30 million for nothing-on students who are already paying the money back.

Rob Marris: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow of rhetoric, which is considerable, but does he agree that the Conservative motion is not entirely clear about the 10,000 places, because the implication is that those 10,000 places would be there for ever more, whereas it is in fact a one-off for only one cohort?

Kevin Brennan: As my hon. Friend rightly points out-he got the Opposition to elucidate earlier-this is a one-off three-card trick. I do not think the policy could possibly be sustained over a period of time, because it is a false way of trying to fund the extra places. If the hon. Member for Havant wants to fund these places-it is a legitimate aspiration to fund more places in higher education; we have done it year after year so that we now have record numbers of places-he has to be up front with the British people, he has to be straight with the House and he has to say that he is prepared to spend the money, by borrowing if necessary, to do so. Otherwise, he will simply not be believed, and he will waste £30 million on a dead-weight cost, which is an absolute waste of public money.
	 Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 228, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	 Question agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	 Resolved,
	That this House recognises the Government's commitment to maintaining investment in apprenticeships, higher education and skills and its commitment not to repeat the mistakes of past recessions, and to ensure that young people are not trapped in long-term unemployment; notes that since 1997 there have been 339,000 extra students in higher education, more than ever before, and that public funding has increased by over 25 per cent. in real terms creating the world-class higher education sector enjoyed today; further notes the Government's commitment to managed growth in higher education to sustain quality and success in widening access, creating the most diverse student population ever; commends the Government's commitment to helping graduates through the downturn; further notes that investment in apprenticeships today is over £1 billion in 2009-10, and that in 1997 there were only 65,000 starts compared to 240,000 in 2008-09; further notes the success of Train to Gain in supporting over 1.4 million course starts; commends the September Guarantee offering all 16 and 17 year olds an apprenticeship, school, college or training place; and acknowledges the Government's investment of £1.2 billion in the Future Jobs Fund to guarantee a job, training or work experience for every young person unemployed for 12 months, and the graduate guarantee giving graduates unemployed for six months a guarantee of a high-quality internship or training, or help to become self-employed.

Energy Security

Madam Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I ask all hon. Members who are not staying for this debate please to leave the Chamber as quickly and quietly as possible.

Greg Clark: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the impending retirement of over 20 gigawatts of UK generating capacity, the ongoing depletion of North Sea oil and gas reserves and the nation's growing dependency on imported fossil fuels; further notes the high and volatile prices of those imports and the threats to the constancy and adequacy of their supply; regrets that British energy policy has failed to change with these circumstances and that, consequently, the nation's energy security has been compromised, as exemplified by the low levels of UK gas storage capacity; acknowledges that fundamental reforms to the energy policy framework are required in order to attract the investment required to guarantee reliable, affordable and sustainable energy supplies; calls upon the Government to take immediate action to ensure diversity in new electricity generating capacity and adequate levels of natural gas storage; and, recognising that energy efficiency is the most cost-effective means of meeting Britain's energy needs, further calls upon the Government to implement policies capable of accelerating the deployment of efficiency improvements to millions of domestic and non-domestic buildings, in particular to the homes of the growing number of fuel-poor households.
	If ever the House needed a reminder of the importance of affordable, reliable energy supplies, this winter has provided it. It has also reminded us that the measures that we need to take to safeguard the security of those supplies will be tested. As the Engineering Employers Federation said last week:
	"The long-standing vulnerability in our energy system has been exposed...As a nation we need to take security of energy supply more seriously."
	This time around, a number of businesses on interruptible gas contracts were cut off. Thankfully, supplies to residential customers were maintained, but this is no cause for complacency. Temperatures have been unusually low, but the effects of the recession have depressed underlying demand. Fortunately, there has been no repeat this winter of the unresolved dispute between Russia and Ukraine, which has meant that supplies from that region have so far not been disrupted. There is, however, no guarantee that we shall not have another cold winter, or that Russia will not turn off the taps in the future, or that we shall not have a problem with the Rough storage facility, as happened four years ago.
	The Government know that, as Shakespeare said:
	"When sorrows come, they come not single spies, but in battalions".
	The only thing that we should expect is that unexpected events will happen. To guarantee our energy security not just most of the time but all the time, we need to be prepared. The head of Ofgem has said:
	"The headline fact is that Britain is the single most exposed country among the big players in Europe".
	Current energy policy is not adequately prepared for what could have been, and should have been, foreseen.
	Let me say from the outset that I do not blame the Secretary of State for this. After all, he has been in the job for just over a year, and it has taken at least 10 years of drift to leave Britain this unprepared for the energy challenges of the 21st century. I strongly suspect that he privately shares our analysis of the situation. He himself said today that
	"there is clearly an urgent need for additional gas storage",
	and I welcome that recognition. He says that we should have more gas storage and greater diversity of supply, including nuclear power and renewables, and that we should promote energy efficiency. I think that there is agreement on this that crosses party lines.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Committee that I chair, which is of course a cross-party Committee, has repeatedly warned of the dangers of inadequate gas storage. It is an eminently foreseeable problem which should have been dealt with sooner. Can he suggest any reasons for the failure to deal with such an obvious problem much more quickly?

Greg Clark: I am afraid I cannot, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the work of the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise over the years. In its landmark report "Energy prices, fuel poverty and Ofgem", produced in 2008, it stated:
	"This is an issue our predecessor Committee raised in its 2002 and 2005 Reports on security of supply and fuel prices. Significant additional storage, beyond that currently planned, is needed to reduce volatility in the wholesale gas price...It is now an issue of national importance and should be a high priority in domestic energy policy."
	As I have said, I cannot blame the Secretary of State for that. It was his predecessors who should have responded in a timely fashion. I am glad that he now sees the need to respond to the challenge, albeit late in the day.

Joan Humble: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the specific needs of individual gas storage applications? An application for underground storage on the border of my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace)-I am pleased to see that he is present-is strongly opposed by our constituents on grounds relating to the geology of the area. Gas storage applications must be examined case by case to ensure that they are safe before it is decided that they should proceed in the national interest.

Greg Clark: I agree with the hon. Lady to an extent. Of course it is necessary to consider whether individual locations are suitable for storage purposes. That makes perfect sense. It is clear that if something as important as gas is to be stored, safety must be paramount. However, I do not think that that should lead us to the conclusion that we should not nationally move towards greater gas storage. The fact that investigations of this kind take some time to complete is all the more reason to begin them earlier, so that they need not be conducted in a rush and there is not the exposure that we have begun to see in recent years.

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend is being characteristically generous-hearted to the Secretary of State. Is this not the Secretary of State who, only a few days ago, told the media that we did not need to worry about gas storage in this country because we had such large offshore oil and gas deposits underground in the North sea? If that is the case, and if that is the justification for his predecessors' failure in not providing more gas storage facilities, why has the other major western industrialised country, the United States, which has substantial underground deposits of oil and gas, been creating significant strategic storage capacity over the past 10 years?

Greg Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the fact that the Secretary of State has described the situation as "urgent" may indicate that he has moved on a bit from that position.
	As I have said, I do not think that this issue should divide us. Over the past few days the United Kingdom-based Chemical Industries Association carried out a survey following which it reported that nearly half its members believed that increased storage was essential to future investment by companies in the UK, and over a third claimed that the current uncertainty of supply-caused by a lack of gas storage-was restricting the ability of the sector to invest in the UK. The situation is, as the Secretary of State says, urgent.

Simon Hughes: The consensual tone of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks is in notable contrast to comments that he has made publicly in the press over the past seven days. He claimed that we had only eight days of gas storage left. National Grid immediately dismissed that as a "meaningless figure" which totally ignored the amount of national supply that we have available. Will the hon. Gentleman now apologise for what was an unnecessary, alarmist, inaccurate and misleading comment?

Greg Clark: Of course I will not apologise. I think that if there is one significant threat to the country's energy security, it is the possibility that the complacent approach of the hon. Gentleman's party will be adopted by others. I think he should listen to the counsel of his colleague the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who has taken a long-standing interest in this problem and has repeatedly urged us to act on it. As he believes this is an urgent issue, I assume he thinks we should increase the amount of capacity we have. The fact is that, at the best of times, we currently have 16 days' worth of storage capacity, whereas France has 120 and Germany has 100. Therefore, apart from the Liberal Democrats, I do not think anyone believes the amount that we have is adequate; and, of course, when we have high winter demand, such as we saw recently, that maximum level of 16 days becomes much less. One problem is that the concentration of our storage capacity at present means that it is difficult to withdraw it from storage at the rate that we could use it in cold snaps such as the current one. Therefore, as well as a greater increase in the number of days of storage, we need greater diversity so we can get it into the system more quickly.

John Gummer: I ask my hon. Friend to resist the temptation to listen to the Liberal Democrats on this issue, on the basis that they are always in favour of things in general and against them in particular when there is a single vote to be gained.

Greg Clark: I would agree with my right hon. Friend, who has always taken a responsible position on this subject, if I thought this was a good electoral strategy for the Liberal Democrats, but I do not believe that refusing to participate in a serious discussion that will ensure that we increase the resilience of our national energy supply will convince the electors at all.

Lembit �pik: I ask the hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of transparency called for by his colleague, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), to clarify his position on the following question, which greatly concerns my constituents. What is the Conservative party stance on land-based wind turbines? While one may very well be in favour of offshore turbines, it would cause great disturbance to my constituents if the volume of turbines that is proposed were to be built. I have asked the following question on many occasions, but no Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson has answered it: if the Conservative party is elected to office, will it change the turbine policy of the current Government?

Greg Clark: We think that, in order to secure our energy supplies in future, we need diversity of energy sources. It was Churchill who said that the security of our energy supply lies in diversity and diversity alone, and it is important that we have contributions to our supply from across the piece. Therefore, we would change that policy, because one of the problems with the current onshore wind policy regime is that many communities-including some in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, perhaps-feel they gain no advantage from the siting of wind farms in their locality. They are sometimes concerned about what they might see as risks-they might not know whether the wind farms will be noisy, or what the impact will be. They will therefore often decide-on a precautionary principle, perhaps-to oppose the application because there is no countervailing argument. On the continent, however, wind farms tend to be much more community-based and community-owned. Whether in Denmark or Spain, the communities that host wind farms share in the benefits, such as by receiving revenue from the electricity sold or, in many cases, getting cheaper electricity. Our policy is to return some of those benefits-through the first six years of business rates, for example-and to look into how we might provide cheaper electricity to the communities involved. That at least provides a more balanced debate.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the Conservative party for holding a debate on energy security. I agree that diversity of supply is important. It used to appear, to Labour Members at least, that the Conservative party's policy on nuclear-which, interestingly, is not mentioned at all in its motion-was to pop down to the supermarket and buy one if necessary. Life is not like that. Has the hon. Gentleman's party changed its policy on nuclear, and if so, what is it now?

Greg Clark: I shall talk about nuclear later. I am pro-nuclear; I believe we need to get on with it. I think that one of the problems we face is that we now have a gap between the end of the planned life of our current fleet of nuclear power stations and the earliest possible date at which we can get new ones. That gap should not be there; we should have avoided creating it.
	The Secretary of State expresses a view with which we all agree-that we need increased capacity in our gas storage system. I was surprised by the wording of the Liberal amendment, which is alarmingly complacent. I hope that at least between those on the two Front Benches there will be agreement on the action that is now required to guarantee Britain's energy security, not least because that action involves long-term decisions. We should not seek to make short-term differences. Companies will make major investment decisions worth £200 billion and lasting 20, 30 or 40 years. We should aim for a long-term view of diversity and more robust sources of supply.
	British energy policy has been exposed as out of date. It was designed 25 years ago for a world in which Britain had an excess of generating capacity, where we enjoyed the security of growing North sea oil and gas production, and where concerns about local pollution and international climate change were not as intense as they are now. However, power plants get old, fossil fuel reserves dwindle away, and pollution builds up to crisis proportions. The Government have had ample warning on all those fronts.
	Power plant lifetimes are a matter of record. The Government knew that our existing fleet of power stations would need to be replaced. The peaking and decline of North sea production has long been predicted and was already under way at the beginning of the Government's first term, with obvious implications for dependence on fossil fuel imports. In their 1997 election manifesto, the Government promised a 20 per cent. cut in carbon emissions by 2010, thereby serving notice on themselves that a transition to cleaner sources of energy would be required.
	Despite the transformation some time ago of the basic assumptions underlying energy policy, the policy framework has remained fundamentally unchanged. A framework designed for an age of plenty is still with us in an age of insecurity. Sometimes Government are overtaken by events, but in respect of energy policy, the Government saw what was coming and did not do enough about it.
	Let me explain where that leaves us in terms of the main areas of energy use-first, electricity. Back in July the Department of Energy and Climate Change unveiled its energy plan for the coming decade. It is good that there is such a plan and it is perhaps the most important document that the Department has published to date, but it contained a dark secret. It revealed that Ministers were expecting black-outs across Britain in the years ahead.
	A chart in that document showed a big rise in what are called expected energy unserved, otherwise known as power cuts. From virtually no black-outs now, the Government said that they expected the level to rise to 3,000 MWh by 2017. That is the equivalent of three nuclear power stations shutting down at the same time, or to put it another way, 1 million people losing power for 15 minutes more than 20 times in the course of a year. Worse still, shortages would most likely strike at times of peak demand-that is, on the coldest winter evenings. The head of Ofgem warned us that the years following 2015 could be very cold indeed.  [Interruption.]
	The Minister sometimes complains, as he is doing now from a sedentary position, that the chart is taken out of context and that we ought not to make use of it in this way. We have always been very careful to make its context clear. It is an official projection included in an official Government publication, freely available not just to the Opposition, but to anyone considering whether to invest in this country over the next 10 years.
	Let me turn to discuss coal. Our power sector, in which I include coal, will certainly need investment. Anyone who believes in diversity, as I do, needs to look at fuel sources right across the range. It is worth noting that, in the course of the big freeze that we have had during the past week, coal plant has at times supplied more than 40 per cent. of our electricity, helping to relieve pressure on gas supplies. The pressure on gas supplies would have been very much worse if we had been in the situation that we will arrive at in the next few years, when a third of our coal generating capacity is withdrawn.

David Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that most of that coal will come from places such as Russia, where 6,000 miners a year are dying, so we are getting energy at the cost of people's lives? That would not have been the case if his former Government had not done away with the best mining industry in the world.

Greg Clark: There will be a future for UK coal within that, but it depends on a number of factors. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we import a lot of coal from Russia. Coal is clearly more readily available and easily stocked than gas, so it contributes to energy security. I share his concerns about the safety situation there. We want to ensure that we operate using supplies that come from sources we can be proud of and confident about. I hope that in due course we can have more of a source of supply from this country as well. However, that depends on making progress on carbon capture and storage. If we subscribe, rightly, to a set of emissions targets that require CO2 emissions to come down by 80 per cent. by 2050, we will need to make a breakthrough on CCS if we are to be able to use coal as an addition to our diversity of supply.

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman has rightly mentioned diversity of supply on several occasions. In that regard, will he clarify what his party's views will be in respect of offshore wind and marine tidal renewable energy? The July White Paper calls for, from memory, some 33 GW of generation. Much of that development is taking place in my constituency, with the potential for a great many jobs to replace those at Dounreay, which is being decommissioned. There is obviously uncertainty over the long term, and it would be most helpful if he could clarify his position.

Greg Clark: I am delighted to do that. Our party is strongly pro the development of offshore wind and marine and tidal energy. Given the renewables resources that we have in this country, with one of the longest coastlines in Europe and some of the best conditions to allow the harnessing of the power of the wind and the tides, it is a source of great regret that we have made so little progress on that. Only Malta and Luxembourg generate less of their energy from renewables than we do. We need to accelerate that process. The announcement made the other day by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister is a step in the right direction. However, it is regrettable that many of the jobs that could be generated, not least in constituencies such as those of the hon. Gentleman, are less certain than they might have been had we been further ahead and had not other countries established a lead.

Michael Weir: One of the problems with renewables, especially in Scotland, involves the transmission charges for bringing the energy into the grid. What would be the hon. Gentleman's policy on that? Would he take action to reduce transmission charges or introduce a postage stamp scheme whereby transmission charges would be equal across the UK?

Greg Clark: I cannot give a commitment that charges should be equal, but I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is no good developing plants that generate significant capacity offshore if we cannot then bring that energy onshore. We have suggested that the National Grid-it is keen to do this-should build its onshore network offshore so that it is easier for promoters of renewable energy offshore, whether wind, wave or tidal, to get it to where the customers are.

Michael Weir: rose-

Greg Clark: I want to make progress now, because lots of Members want to speak. If I have time, I will take the hon. Gentleman's intervention later.
	On carbon capture and storage, I am afraid that the Government have dithered; I take no pleasure in pointing that out. In 2007, there was the announcement of a token competition for just one demonstration plant. Last year, there was a much more encouraging sign from the Secretary of State, after he took over, when he stood up in this House and made a bold announcement on CCS. There is to be an expanded demonstration plant programme-

Edward Miliband: There will be four.

Greg Clark: Indeed. There will presumably be a second competition to embrace a wider range of CCS technology, for which Conservative Members have been calling for some time. However, despite the first competition having been announced in 2007, the winner has yet to be announced. The indications are that it will not be until 2011 at the earliest. As for the second competition, it is not even open yet. If I am wrong I shall be delighted to be corrected by the Secretary of State, because I would welcome greater progress.
	I should mention a third competition, of course. As the Secretary of State knows, the one taking place in several countries and run by the European Union managed to announce the winners by autumn last year. I would simply observe that any organisation that can be outpaced by the European Commission has major problems. Unfortunately, foot dragging and bureaucracy is what we have come to expect from this Administration. The chaotic history of their policy on CCS has turned what could be a leading position for Britain into one in which we now lag behind China, Canada, Germany and Belgium.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Clark: I want to make a bit of progress, and then I will give way.
	Nuclear, which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) mentioned, is another example of Government foot dragging. For years we have known when each of Britain's nuclear power stations would be retired. When the Government came to power, nuclear provided 26 per cent. of our electricity. Today, that contribution stands at just 13 per cent. and is set to fall further as more stations are retired. Ministers were well aware that replacing that lost capacity in good time required an early go-ahead, but it was not until the 2007 energy White Paper that it was given. It was another two years before the necessary changes to the planning regime were put in place. With the exception of Sizewell B, every existing nuclear power station will have reached the end of its planned life before it is even possible to replace it with a new one. Of course, the current timetable assumes that there will be no further delays. Given the track record of recent years, we cannot rely on that.

Jamie Reed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Clark: I will, because I know that the nuclear interest is very important in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Jamie Reed: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Fans of satire will be listening to his comments with real interest, because the single biggest problem with the nuclear industry in this country can be traced back directly to the last Conservative Government's abysmal failure to deal with radioactive waste management. That is the root of the current reality.

Greg Clark: I have been disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's recent interventions on this matter. I have followed his speeches over the years, and he has recognised the importance that his constituents and people in his region place on certainty and continuity of policy. However, just in the past few debates he has taken a partisan approach to these issues that is against his constituents' interests. In the interests of their employment, he ought to reflect on the signals that he gives.

Jamie Reed: rose-

Greg Clark: I will not give way, because I have given the hon. Gentleman his chance.

Bernard Jenkin: I just wish to put on record what we all know. There have been Secretaries of State in this Government dealing with matters of nuclear waste who have refused to allow any papers regarding nuclear policy to cross their desk as a matter of principle. It is ideology, such as that from the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), that has paralysed the Government.

Greg Clark: I said that I wanted to be constructive, and I welcome the Government's conversion to a more sensible policy.

Tobias Ellwood: In the spirit of being constructive, may I urge my hon. Friend to urge the Secretary of State to include gas in carbon capture and storage? We are currently debating that issue in Committee. We are talking about CCS for coal, which is absolutely right, but the Government are adamant that they will not include gas in the levy that will shortly be rolled out. Why are we not looking to the future and ensuring that the coal-fired power stations, which will all close in 2020, are replaced with gas-fired power stations? We should be thinking about CCS for gas as well.

Greg Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. If we want to establish leadership on that, it is important that for demonstration purposes we examine all the technologies that are available. If, as I believe, we will not reduce our dependence on gas, it will be important in meeting our emissions target that we can capture carbon dioxide emissions from gas in due course. The Secretary of State is a reasonable man, and often when amendments are tabled he undertakes to consider them carefully. I hope that he will do so on this occasion and reflect on whether the matter can be included in the competition. That would be a good thing to do.

Martin Horwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Clark: I will not, but I might later if I make better progress through the points that I want to make than I am at the moment.
	I mentioned renewables and the importance of ensuring diversity of supply. However, there is another important point that comes from renewables: if we do not address some of the technical factors of renewables, such as intermittency, we could exacerbate the problem of energy security rather than solve it. For example, I am not confident that we have the policies to build the back-up capacity that we will need if we are to have a greater contribution from intermittent renewables. The conclusion of a comparative study commission by National Grid and a number of other organisations stated:
	While the Irish market is able to continually incentivise new peaking plant with increasing wind penetration, we are concerned that there is a real challenge in delivering very low load factor plant in the British market.
	That needs to be addressed.

Shona McIsaac: rose-

Greg Clark: No; I want to make some progress.
	That brings me to the subject of gas, which has occupied our attention in recent days. Gas is a crucial fuel. As well as providing heat, it is our most important source of electricity, in terms of both quantity and the flexibility with which gas-fired plants can meet fluctuations in supply and demand. Yet despite the pivotal and growing importance of gas in supplying our energy needs, the rapid decline of North sea production and proven threats to the security of our pipeline supplies, we are still unable to store enough gas to see us safely through the coldest months. The consequences of that failure to plan ahead have been exposed in the past 10 days.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Clark: No, I will not.
	In that period, National Grid issued no fewer than four gas balancing alerts and supplies came under strain from the record level of demand. That boils down to four basic flaws in the current system. First, there is simply not enough storage capacity-no one apart from the Liberal Democrats doubts that. I mentioned that we have, at best, about 16 days' worth, compared to 100 in Germany and 122 in France. Ministers have dismissed that.

Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Greg Clark: I have been generous in taking interventions so I now want to make progress.
	Ministers dismissed that comparison, saying that our declining North sea supply means that everything is still supplied, but that is dangerously complacent, because the Netherlands, which relies much less than us on imports, has three times as much storage relative to consumption- [ Interruption. ] I think hon. Members are pointing out that I have not taken any interventions from a woman. If that is a deficiency, I am happy to remedy it by taking one from the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac).

Shona McIsaac: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. Is he aware that my constituency is probably the one with the highest number of gas power stations in the country? Today, the local authority is giving its seal of approval to a biomass power station, which is going to create enough renewable energy to supply more than 500,000 homes. I therefore know quite a lot about the energy issue in this country. The hon. Gentleman must stop scaring the British public. There is far more gas in storage than he says there is, and far more gas that is easily available from the North sea and other sources. Will he stop scaring people about the lack of gas, because it is simply not true?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady's first point was constructive, and I share her welcome for the biomass plant-as I said, diversity is important, and the plant will help to create British jobs-but she is wrong to choose to ignore the problem of inadequate gas storage. We do not often get to talk about such things and people are not aware of them but, at times like this, when we see how little we have, it is important to galvanise support for action.
	Let us take the Engineering Employers Federation and the Energy Intensive Users Group. In a letter today, they say:
	The bottom line is that the UK energy system was unable
	last week
	to meet the needs of all consumers...To dismiss,
	as the hon. Lady seems to do,
	last week's interruption as a one-off also ignores the growing risks associated with increasing dependence on gas from overseas. The long-standing vulnerability in our energy system has been exposed-the UK has significantly lower storage capacity relative to demand than most other major gas-consuming economies.
	That came from the Engineering Employers Federation and the Energy Intensive Users Group; it is what British employers say is necessary for them to continue in business and to continue to expand their businesses.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Greg Clark: I want to be fair and to make progress. Many Members wish to speak and there is a time limit on speeches.
	I said that we need more storage. Secondly, there are limits to how quickly that gas in storage can be extracted. At the start of December 2009, Britain's biggest storage site, the offshore Rough facility, was 99 per cent. full. Throughout the cold snap, Rough has been pumping out gas at its maximum capacity, but that has still not been enough to prevent the need for gas balancing alerts.
	Thirdly, we have an insufficient margin for error. Our small stocks should be just enough to get us through a long cold snap. However, as I mentioned earlier, if just one other thing goes wrong, the knock-on impact will be enough to tip us over the edge into a system whereby it might be much more difficult to cope. Fourthly and finally, we should not confuse a system that prioritises who gets cut off with one that minimises cut-offs. Businesses, many of which have interruptible contracts, were the first to have their gas supplies stopped. That helps to maintain the supply of gas into people's homes, but it is bad news for the businesses that are struggling to emerge from the recession and remain open in these difficult times. As the Energy Intensive Users Group says, there is a real risk that disruptions could become more frequent. That would hit manufacturing hard and risk damaging the UK's reputation, as well as future inward investment.
	The realisation that Britain needs more gas storage is not new. As I mentioned, the Business and Enterprise Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), first highlighted the issue in 2002 and it has highlighted it repeatedly since then. According to-

Shona McIsaac: rose-

Dari Taylor: rose-

Greg Clark: No, I will not give way.
	According to a recent written answer, the Government expect to build another 500 million cubic metres of capacity by 2012-another two days' worth of additional storage. Will the Secretary of State stand up in the House and claim that that is an adequate rate of increase? Perhaps we should all cross our fingers and hope that we will not have another winter like this one.
	I want to give time for my hon. Friends and hon. Members from all parties to contribute to this debate. Making up for the lost opportunities of a wasted decade will take some time. However, we must move forward with a sense of urgency. The issue is about not only catching up with the past but getting ready for a future in which the global production of fossil fuels-especially oil production, on which our transport systems are almost entirely dependent-will come under increasing strain.
	Mainstream voices, including oil industry chief executives, and even Ministers from nations belonging to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, have already warned that the age of easy oil is over. The International Energy Agency has said that it expects crude oil production to level off by 2030. In Britain, the UK Energy Research Centre, a joint initiative of the leading research councils, with which the Secretary of State will be familiar, has said that we could hit that limit by 2020.
	When asked what contingency plans they had for such an eventuality, the UK Government said that they did not have any because they did not think the situation was that urgent. That answer should fill us with dread, but it is one that we have heard time after time. It is symptomatic of an attitude that in the past has been complacent and has not involved the action that we could have foreseen was needed. It explains, among other things, why we do not have enough gas storage capacity. It also explains why we do not have an adequate margin of generating capacity for electricity in this country and why we have not made sufficient progress on carbon capture and storage, nuclear and renewable energy. It is why we are wasting the chance to insulate our homes and stop wasting energy; we may discuss that issue later in the debate.
	We need a policy for generating energy, not excuses. We need to rebuild the security of our energy systems and infrastructure with significantly higher levels of gas storage. On electricity generation, the Government must make it crystal clear that a collapsing margin of supply over demand is in no way acceptable. If current trading arrangements cannot guarantee that the lights will stay on, those arrangements must be reformed. That means unblocking progress across the broadest possible spectrum of energy uses. That is why we welcome the Government's national planning statements on nuclear, renewables and other key technologies, but it is also why we believe that they should be ratified by a vote of Parliament, to protect them against the threat of judicial review, which could delay progress for even more years.
	We also, of course, need to build the enabling infrastructure for those technologies-for instance, the smart meters in our homes, an offshore grid for renewables and pipelines for carbon capture and storage. Continued delay and uncertainty on these vital networks will cost us dear as investors turn to other countries while Britain is left behind.
	Finally, if we are serious about reducing demand, we must act to make sure that, as we go further into a winter during which fuel poverty is rising, we make it easy for people to find ways to make fuel consumption in their homes more modest and efficient. In place of unwanted light bulbs, we need a green deal to make a real difference to our energy bills and a real contribution to our energy security. The solutions to our energy crisis are within our reach. All that we need is a Government with the vision, the will and, dare I say it, the energy to make things happen.

Edward Miliband: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from 'House' to end and add:
	notes that around 20 gigawatts of new power generation is either under construction or has been consented to; believes that during a time of historically low temperatures and the highest ever gas demand in recent days, the country's energy infrastructure has shown resilience; further notes the increase in gas import capacity by 500 per cent. in the last decade, and the increase in the diversity of sources of gas, including liquefied natural gas and gas imports through interconnectors with Norway and continental Europe; commends the Planning Act 2008, which has created the circumstances for greater onshore gas storage as well as for new nuclear power stations and other low carbon energy infrastructure, and the Energy Act 2008 which has created the circumstances for greater offshore gas storage; backs the development of the grid to make it ready for a low-carbon energy mix; supports the Government's drive towards greater energy efficiency in homes through programmes such as Warm Front, the Carbon Emissions Reductions Target and Community Energy Savings Programme, all of which contribute to fighting fuel poverty, and in businesses through programmes such as the forthcoming Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Schemes; commends the Government's wider plans to embark on the Great British Refurb, where up to seven million homes will have whole house makeovers by 2020; and further supports an approach based on strategic government and dynamic markets that maintains the country's energy security as well as developing more diverse energy supplies, including clean coal, renewable and nuclear energy..
	The speech made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) is a curious speech to follow. One is normally tempted to say that the Opposition offer easy answers, but on the central issues that he complained about, he offered no answers. If ever we needed confirmation that it is up to those on the Labour Benches to answer the difficult questions that Britain faces, the hon. Gentleman's speech was an example of that.
	I want to start by thanking the people who have played such an important role in protecting our energy supplies during the longest spell of cold weather for 30 years. I thank the operators and engineers of the national grid, the people working in the oil and gas fields of the North sea and the people who have gone out to repair power lines in the most inclement conditions for their work. They are the people who keep the lights on in this country and guarantee security of supply. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.
	In the gas system, the cold weather produced record demand on consecutive days last week, with demand at 468 million cubic metres-a figure that is far higher than the previous record. The surge in demand came alongside four major losses of supply from Norwegian fields as a result of the very cold weather there. It is worth saying that, despite some of the statements that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells was making last week, apart from a short period last week when there were restrictions for a small number of companies that had discounted gas as part of interruptible contracts, the gas supply has been operating for households and businesses as it would on any day of the year. We need to keep monitoring the situation as the winter progresses and we always keep the system under review-it is very important that the Government do that-but the system has shown resilience despite the strain of cold weather and supply loss.
	Why has the system shown such resilience over the past 10 days or so? One of the reasons is the action taken by this Government in the last four years, since the fire that occurred at the Rough storage facility in 2005-06, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. On peak days last week, we were able to serve almost a third of our demand-142 million cubic metres out of a total demand of 468 million-through new sources of supply that simply did not exist four or five years ago. Those include the Langeled pipeline from Norway, the BBL pipeline from the Netherlands, and the South Hook and Dragon liquefied natural gas terminals at Milford Haven. That did not happen by accident. It was our agreement with Norway in 2005 that made the pipelines possible. The work that was done with Qatar and the investors in Milford Haven-billions of pounds of investment was provided-made possible the LNG terminals, and it was the willingness to ensure an open market in the UK that made those investments possible.
	Those things could happen only because of the proactive role of Government in enabling the new facilities. The chief executive of National Grid, Steve Holliday, said last week that
	we've seen the benefits of the investment of the last five years where the UK can now import 30 per cent. of its gas internationally that it couldn't five years ago.
	So the central claim that the hon. Gentleman has been making-at least in the television studios, when they have invited him on-which is that this Government have not acted is, of course, nonsense. I welcome the tone that he employed today much more than I welcome the tone that he uses in the television studios. I hope that he learns something from the experience of the past few weeks. Playing politics with energy security does no good to anyone, and it is exactly the kind of tactic that turns people off politics.

Andrew Murrison: I wonder what a constituent who wrote to me a couple of days ago would say in response to the Secretary of State's remarks. My constituent said that he was a major employer in our part of the county and was facing a critical situation with regard to maintaining production through having an interrupted gas supply. He was faced with a huge daily cost through having to switch to oil to maintain energy and heating to the plant, and he said that that was not sustainable for such a business. How many businesses, compared with businesses in France or Germany, for example, were having the sort of interrupted supply that my constituent describes?

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman asks a serious question about a business in his constituency. Obviously we want to limit the number of interruptions to businesses, although it is worth saying that the businesses that have chosen to take interruptible contracts have been getting prices on average 5 to 10 per cent. lower as a result.
	I would like to make a slightly technical point about the kind of interruptible contracts deployed last week. The point is not about the amount of gas in the system; it is about the pipe network. National Grid has said that when the pipe network reaches a certain level, a deal is made with those companies under which they get discounted gas. In exchange, however, during peak times and when there are exceptional circumstances, such as the recent cold weather and supply outage, their contracts will be interrupted. We want as few businesses as possible to be interrupted, and I am glad that the business that the hon. Gentleman mentioned had a back-up. There are no interruptions this week, so far, which is positive news.

John Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman rightly warns us against playing politics with energy security, but would he not agree that his Government played politics with it for 10 years? They produced an energy policy in which they specifically removed every single date by which things would be done, except for one that was 50 years away, which meant that nobody involved would be around to see whether what they said should happen did happen. Is it not true that for 10 years the Government have failed to step up to the decisions that had to be made?

Edward Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman, about whom I made admiring remarks last week-I slightly regret it now-is known for being beyond partisan politics, at least most of the time, so I do not think that those comments become him. I do not know what he means by 50 years' time. We have set clear targets, at least on low carbon emissions, for much sooner than in 50 years' time, and we are clear about our energy policy, as I shall explain.
	I want to say something else that is important in setting the context for this debate. People are hard-pressed at the moment, including on gas and electricity bills. In a sense, however, this is a comparative debate with the rest of Europe, so it is worth saying that gas prices here are the lowest in Europe, as they have been for domestic customers for the past five years. That says something about the nature of our system. It does not mean that it is not capable of improvement. All systems are capable of improvement, and we should always learn lessons. However, it is important to make this point, particularly when people talk about prices spiking and so on: according to the most recent figures, we have the lowest prices in Europe.

Anne Begg: Perhaps some of the Opposition's misunderstanding comes from the wording in their own motion, which refers to the
	ongoing depletion of North Sea oil and gas.
	They should tell that to the Norwegians, who have in place interconnectors supplying us with gas, as the Secretary of State said. I can assure the House that there are as many known reserves in the UK bit of the North sea as there were in the 1970s. The reference to depletion suggests the ending of North sea gas, but that is some way down the line. In north-east Scotland, we fight that all the time, because people seem to think that there is no longer oil and gas in the North sea. There is, there is a lot of it and it is important that it remains part of our energy mix.

Edward Miliband: I am pleased that my hon. Friend intervened, because she takes me to the right part of my speech. Let me add that I enjoyed the offshore oil and gas industry reception last night that she hosted.
	It is important to ask what a strategy for gas involves in this country. It involves three things. Maximising production from our indigenous supplies is very important. The North sea still supplies about 50 per cent. of our gas supplies. That is why we took the action that we did in the Budget and pre-Budget report-my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was a great advocate for this-to provide new tax allowances to support the development of particularly challenging oil and gas fields in the North sea. We did that to maximise production in the North sea. That is very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) was right to say that we must not write off the North sea. It is home to a very important industry, and one that will remain important for years to come.

Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State just said that the UK is currently experiencing the lowest gas prices in Europe. I am sure that he does not want to play politics with that claim, but I suspect that he is talking about wholesale gas prices. When does he expect those prices to be passed on to consumers?

Edward Miliband: We want price reductions to be passed on to consumers as quickly as possible. That is important, and I have made that clear on numerous occasions. However, I think that I am right in saying-I shall check back on this-that the figures that I quoted are reflected in both wholesale and retail prices.

Tobias Ellwood: It does not matter where the gas comes from-whether it is through the Langeled pipeline or from the North sea-as long as we get it. The question that I would pose to the Secretary of State is as follows. The Government have rightly introduced targets to reduce CO2 emissions, but if we are to achieve them by 2030 or 2050, we will need to start carbon capture and storage for gas. May I therefore invite him to ensure that the legislation that is going through the House which deals with carbon capture and storage for coal gives the option to consider demonstration projects for gas as well? It seems a waste of time to delay that now. Let us catch up, get ahead and ensure that gas is included.

Edward Miliband: We will look at all proposals, but what is the constraint? The constraint is that we are spending up to £9.5 billion on carbon capture and storage from the levy, which will come from consumers around the country. We think that the priority lies in having four coal-fired demonstration projects, but the hon. Gentleman wants to tax more and to spend more from the levy. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will obviously look at any proposals in Committee.

Charles Hendry: When the Secretary of State says that the Government will look at all proposals, is he aware that his fellow Minister voted the proposal down with her colleagues in Committee yesterday?

Edward Miliband: Obviously my hon. Friend looked at the proposal and thought that it was not a good one.
	As well as the North sea, we need import capacity, which is up by 500 per cent. in the past decade. It is important to say that import capacity now stands at 125 per cent. of the total UK demand for gas-that is, it is greater. That capacity comes from the Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Algeria, Australia, Egypt, Qatar, and Trinidad and Tobago. Why is that list of countries important? It is important because it emphasises the importance of diversity, which is key when it comes to security of supply. To further increase import capacity, the South Hook facility-an extraordinary facility that I urge people to visit, as I have, for its opening-is doubling capacity this quarter. We are also exploring additional pipeline capacity with other countries, which is important.
	Let me turn to storage, which the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells spent a lot of time talking about. The question is not whether we need more storage in the years ahead; the question is how we get it. What was most disappointing about his speech was that, as far as I could tell, he had no proposals on storage. He complained for most of his speech about what he saw as the lack of storage, but he had no suggestions for how we should get that storage. Let me provide my suggestions for how we need to get more storage in this country.
	First, we have the national policy statement on gas infrastructure. One thing that has bedevilled the building of more gas storage is the planning process, which is an obstacle to more storage. We established an offshore consents regime under the Energy Act 2008, but the new Infrastructure Planning Commission is also important, not just in relation to gas storage, but more generally. As the Opposition are, today at least, in the mood for seeking consensus, let me say that they should get on and support the Infrastructure Planning Commission's work. Business is saying loudly and clearly that it seems odd that a party aspiring to government should be saying, We're going to overhaul the planning regime, when we finally have a good planning regime in place.
	I know that the hon. Gentleman is not in charge of the policy, but I hope that, having listened to this debate, he will go and talk to the shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), and say that he has discovered the spirit of not playing party politics on such questions and so should she. She should accept the planning regime that we are proposing, because it is clearly the right way forward and will speed up the building of energy infrastructure in this country.

Celia Barlow: I thank my right hon. Friend for taking my intervention. Had the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) taken my intervention, I would have asked him whether his party's opposition to the Planning Act 2008 is damaging not only the possibility of storage for gas, but numerous renewable projects that his party claims to support, one of which, on a small scale, is in Brighton and Hove, where the Tory council voted against wind turbines on its own building.

Edward Miliband: The council obviously has not followed the example of the Leader of the Opposition. My hon. Friend is completely right. Most right-thinking people in the House think that the planning situation generally has been one of the big problems concerning energy infrastructure. We finally have a planning regime that commands support, and it would be far better if the Opposition saw the error of their ways and started to support it.

Ben Wallace: In my constituency, a large planning application for underground gas storage facilities has been made by a company called Canatxx. The proposal area borders the constituency of the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble). Both the Labour-controlled county council and the Secretary of State have turned down the application, and it is now being resubmitted because of the changes to planning legislation that the Secretary of State has mentioned. The application was turned down on the grounds of safety and failures in relation to geology. The Secretary of State wants the Conservative party to engage fully in the reform of planning, but will he confirm that such bodies should not overrule fears about safety or geology in the interests of, perhaps, small lobbying companies such as Canatxx has become?

Edward Miliband: I shall not get into individual planning applications, but I know that the IPC rightly takes safety issues seriously.

Joan Humble: The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) and I have worked very closely on this matter, which is of serious concern to all our constituents. I recall having a debate on the new planning regulations, and there is still a key role for listening to the voice of the community. In many ways, the new planning guidance strengthens the voice of the community. I want that voice to be heard in relation to the planning application that Canatxx has put forward again, against the wishes of everyone in the locality.

Edward Miliband: I am sure that my hon. Friend forms a formidable duo with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace). She makes an important point. One thing that I find curious about the Opposition's proposals on planning is that they say that the Government should set the planning statement and that the Secretary of State should continue to exercise judgment about specific applications. I think it would be better for my hon. Friend's and the hon. Gentleman's constituents if those decisions were taken independently, so that the people who put forward the overall plans on gas storage were not also making the individual judgments. I maintain that the planning reforms that I have talked about are important.
	Let me say one more thing about gas. I think that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells has found that there are no easy answers to this issue. The difficulty is finding a balance between the role of the market and role of the state in ensuring security of supply. After last year's winter, we considered, along with Ofgem and the National Grid, whether the balance was right and whether more needed to be done on how the market worked. That led to two changes, the first of which was in the information that is available to the market to ensure that suppliers understand the short-term supply-and-demand situation and the availability of gas from storage. The second change was an increase in the effective penalties on shippers who fail to deliver gas that they are contracted to provide.
	We continue to consider whether more needs to be done on the operation of the market, and it is right that we do that. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells did not necessarily refer to this point, but it was probably implicit in his speech, and it is even more important given that two thirds of the world's gas suppliers are in Russia and the middle east. It is important to note that that is not the case for our gas suppliers; that is why our diversity is so important. It was because of our interest in these issues that we asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks) to produce his important report on international energy security, to which we will respond before the general election. I think that the most important conclusion from that report was about the strength that we get from the diversity of our energy sources. That is a strategy that he pursued very successfully as Minister for Energy. It has borne fruit and we continue to pursue it. As part of the road map to 2050 that we are preparing, we are considering whether more needs to be done. His report emphasised the importance of long-term contracts, which are more common on the continent, as well as a variety of other issues.
	It is also worth citing what my right hon. Friend said in his report about the notion of strategic storage, which some people have put forward, effectively suggesting that the Government should build their own storage:
	Any decision to proceed with strategic storage would risk displacing investment in commercial storage, as commercial players would see the existence of strategic storage, which they would suspect might be accessed simply in response to high prices...as undermining their investment case.
	What is good about my right hon. Friend's report is that it shows that there are no easy answers in this area, while charting a way forward for the Government. We will respond to his report, and over the coming months to Ofgem's project discovery work, including any recommendations, alongside the 2050 road map in the spring.
	Let me deal with electricity, which the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned in his speech. Diversity is very important here. About 18 GW of power supplies will go out of commission towards the end of this decade, while 20 GW are under construction or have planning permission. It is interesting to note that when E.ON made its decision to delay the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station, it cited the fact that there was not the expected demand in the system.
	Because the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells has tried to make a cottage industry out of the issue of energy unserved, let me explain why I believe he is engaging in the alarmism that he said he was going to try to avoid and putting a wrong spin on the matter. The Redpoint analysis, published at the time of the national policy statements, updated the figures from the low-carbon transition plan. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy if he does not have one. It says that energy unserved, which the hon. Gentleman made such an issue of, will be zero in 2017; it says that the capacity margin will be 15 per cent. in 2017 and will stay above 10 per cent. for the rest of the decade.
	What that illustrates is why the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the original graph is so alarmist. Demand and supply projections for seven or more years out are always going to be subject to significant change. They are not really a forecast of our security of supply position, but information for the market to respond to, which it does. That is what we have found in the past. When I came into this job, people were saying that 2015 would be a big problem; the hon. Gentleman is now saying that the problem will come in 2017, but I have given him updated projections today. I urge him to engage seriously in the debate.

Greg Clark: rose-

Edward Miliband: I shall give way in a moment. I believe-I shall say more about this after I have heard the hon. Gentleman's intervention-that the problem that Britain faces in relation to energy is not so much one of security of supply, but a different question.

Greg Clark: The figure referred to the Government's central expectations, assuming that all the policies pursued in the paper had been enacted-but may I ask the Secretary of State whether, when he made his statement to the House in July, he had read the table that included the prediction of energy unserved at 3 GWh?

Edward Miliband: Yes, of course. I read all the documents-well perhaps not all, but as many as possible of the documents that my Department produces.

Greg Clark: I am grateful for that, so will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, if he had read that document before he made his statement, he failed to mention a figure of such seismic importance-revealing that for the first time since the 1970s, the Government were expecting power cuts during the years ahead?

Edward Miliband: Because, as I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman, that figure is not of the seismic importance that he claims. He obviously has his alarmist rather than his consensual hat on at the moment. I have to tell him that alarming people about energy issues is not a mature way to conduct politics. He needs to recognise that the analysis we produced in July as part of the low-carbon transition plan has since been updated. I have already said that I will send him a copy of the update, as he has obviously not read it himself; I urge him to read all the documents that my Department produces. This particular information can be found in figure 32, in a technical annexe relating to a carbon capture and storage demonstration; it shows energy unserved not at the level mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but at zero in 2017. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that taking one figure, pretending that it is somehow a prediction of power cuts, which it is not, and then asking why I did not mention it is not helpful. I did not mention it because he has afforded it an importance way out of proportion to what it suggests.
	Diversity is very important to us and to our electricity system, but what do we need to maintain our low-carbon diversity? Before the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I said that I would address that question. The real question for Britain is: do we carry on with a high-carbon security of supply or do we move to a low-carbon security of supply? That cannot be taken for granted, because it will be very challenging for any Government. All the low-carbon sources that I think we need-renewables, clean coal and nuclear-are challenging, and we need a combination of strategic Government and markets to make them happen.
	On renewables, that is why we have reformed the planning system, taken action on the grid, stepped in to work with the European Investment Bank to finance onshore wind, increased the offshore renewables obligation and announced-last week-the biggest offshore wind expansion programme of any country in the world.
	The hon. Gentleman complained about our record on renewables, and I wish that our country had done better on onshore wind. We have not done better, in part because of the planning system and people's objections, but it so happens that we are the world leader in offshore wind. Throughout the world, offshore wind generates about 2 GW, and a bit less than half of that is in the UK. The exciting thing about my announcement last week-I pay tribute to the Crown Estate for its work on the matter-is that it mentioned another 32 GW of offshore wind generation-in a world where there is only 2 GW. That is the scale of the ambition that we can have for offshore wind in this country.

Michael Weir: I appreciate what the Secretary of State says about offshore wind, which I also support, but I make the point that I made to the Conservative spokesman. Offshore wind energy often has to be brought on to the grid from remote places, and there is a continuing problem with transmission charges. The problem was exacerbated again last week when it was suggested that National Grid is considering doubling transmission charges from some islands. Will the right hon. Gentleman tackle that problem once and for all and ensure a fair distribution system, so that such energy is on the grid and available?

Edward Miliband: That is a long-running issue, but it is worth pointing out politely to the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the system that he complains about in relation to generation, his constituents-the consumers who are nearer such generation-will have lower prices. I assure him of that. If we think that projects are not going to go ahead because of the scale of the generation charges, intervention is possible. He is welcome to contact us about that issue, which has been looked at in the past.

William Cash: rose-

Alan Simpson: rose-

John Thurso: rose-

Edward Miliband: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), but then I shall try to wind up so that Labour and Opposition colleagues can speak.

William Cash: I have been very enthusiastic about the Secretary of State's comments on carbon capture and the development that is essential in that area, but so far-I may be anticipating him-he has not said anything about onshore wind farms. He knows that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who is sitting next to him on the Front Bench, and I have a boundary issue regarding several onshore wind farms, and there is deep opposition to them. Will the Secretary of State therefore be good enough to explain why Severn Trent, for example, is encouraged to develop onshore wind farms simply because it happens to own land-irrespective of either the amount of wind or the location of those projects? Will he get that policy right and stop promoting those ridiculous onshore farms?

Edward Miliband: I am sure that on this issue, as on several others, the hon. Gentleman now speaks for his Front-Bench team as well as for himself. I do not agree with him about onshore wind, I am afraid. Onshore wind, along with offshore wind, needs to contribute to our renewable future, and one risk that the Conservative party poses is precisely in the form of its attitude towards onshore wind farms. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and then try to wind up my speech.

Alan Simpson: May I return to transmission access charges? My right hon. Friend will be aware that the big six energy companies by and large object to a change in the current system because they were given the distribution infrastructure as a dowry when the energy industry was privatised. That is why, in turn, they support the principle that everyone should pay for access. National Grid has said that it is open to the argument for socialising the cost of access, however, so will my right hon. Friend at least consider the distribution of costs among the network as a whole, rather than an entry price that works against a shift to new entrants?

Edward Miliband: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of these and many other subjects, so anything that he asks us to look at will be looked at.

John Thurso: With regard to offshore wind, may I draw to the Secretary of State's attention the potential problem of the supply chain, in particular at the Nigg yard? Given that there is one turbine per platform, 100 platforms are required for a 500 MW installation, and the supply chain to deliver that number is not in place. I have spoken to Lord Hunt about this, and he has been very helpful, but I wish to draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State.

Edward Miliband: The hon. Gentleman may consider it drawn to my attention now. One of the ways in which we can get ahead in the offshore wind industry is with generation, which is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for getting the industry in this country-

Alan Whitehead: rose-

Edward Miliband: I want to let hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, speak in the debate, but I will give way this time.

Alan Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend briefly reflect on the agreement that was signed by his Department as one of nine member states to promote investigation of the European supergrid on offshore wind, and whether he considers that that might require some co-operation with our European partners in order to succeed?

Edward Miliband: I agree with my hon. Friend. The European supergrid is an exciting prospect that will obviously require co-operation in Europe-as well as sitting in the European Parliament with people who tend to believe that climate change is real and happening, rather than those who do not.
	In closing, I wish to emphasise the point about diversity. We have acted on renewables. We are acting on clean coal, including legislating for the clean coal levy-I hope that the Conservative party will start supporting that. It sounds as though they are not only now supporting it but saying that it should do more. That is a change in their position, but a welcome one. On nuclear, we have published an important national policy statement. The role of the Infrastructure Planning Commission is also important.
	There is still an issue about the carbon price, partly as result of Copenhagen. We continue to think that the best way to raise the carbon price is through the EU fulfilling its commitments to go from 20 to 30 per cent. Last week I said that we should look at how Britain can most economically meet its low carbon obligations and whether further action will be necessary, and that is the point of our road map to 2050.
	To have a successful energy policy we need diversity and energy efficiency, which is an important part of ensuring that we minimise the demands on the system, as well as understanding the role of government. Strategic government is important alongside the role of the market. As we pursue this debate, we should do so on the basis of facts and robust analysis, without engaging in alarmism of the British people. That does not give politics a good name, or enlighten the public debate. That is why we will vote against the Opposition motion tonight.

Simon Hughes: I welcome this debate, which is topical and appropriate. I also welcome the fact that it began in a more consensual way than expected, given the comments by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) in recent days and the bad weather in this country. The Secretary of State confirmed that we have experienced the highest demand ever. That demand was met in the last week, as official reports confirm, from various sources, with 45 per cent. of our electricity output coming from coal, 37 per cent. from gas and 15 per cent. from nuclear, with a small proportion from wind. So Britain, thank goodness, has diversity of supply.
	There has been a diminution recently in the amount of our own oil and gas that we have been taking out of the North sea, but as the Secretary of State said last night at the oil and gas industry reception, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) reminded us and as colleagues from Scotland know all too well from their constituencies, we still have a fantastic natural resource. We have used it, but it will continue for a significant number of years to come and we also have further unexplored oil and gas resources, particularly west of Shetland and around the coast of Scotland. We have been very blessed with our natural resources and that has given us a security that has seen us through in recent years and in recent days, too. Energy security is fundamentally important. In the parts of the world where it does not exist it is one of the greatest causes of political insecurity, conflict and worse-last winter, we saw in our continent the huge tension that arose between Russia and Ukraine-and therefore it is very important to obtain as much consensus as possible.
	The second consensual point that I shall make, before moving on to a comment about the motion that is a bit less consensual, is that we of course need more storage capacity-I do not think that there has ever been any disagreement about that, and the Liberal Democrats are not complacent. My hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Northavon (Steve Webb) made that point when they served on the Energy Bill Committee in 2008. Their recollection is that there was a general consensus among all three major parties-I imagine the same could be said of the nationalist parties-about that.
	However, although we need more storage capacity, the important point is that there is no crisis-there is not the sort of crisis that the Conservative party would have us believe. Thus, I regret, as we all should, the tone and nature of some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells over the past 10 days.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: I shall in a second. The Conservative party went out into the public domain-into the television and radio studios, and into the national press-and positively alarmed people with false statistics and fictitious claims. That is irresponsible for a party that aspires to be in government. The right thing to do is to try to be accurate about the position and not say things that are immediately contradicted, as these were. I am about to provide the source that backs up that point. This is not about my saying so; it is about other people saying so. The claims were contradicted by those in the industry who know what they are talking about and who deal with these issues every day.

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious allegation when he suggests that these were false statistics. That is clearly not the case. The statistics that we issued were taken straight from the National Grid Company, and they show what we said clearly-I have the press release here-which is that
	At today's level of gas demand, our storage level equates to...8.1 days.
	It pointed out the actual demand on each day and the amount of storage. That is a factual statement and I hope that he will accept it.

Simon Hughes: Of course I accept that, but if one deduces from that or if it is implied-or if one allows others to infer from it-that that is the amount of gas we have available and therefore when we use that up there is no more, on its own it is a statement that one must qualify and add to.  [Interruption.] No, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the background and context is. First, this country has far more of its own resources than the countries with which he compared it-I can show him the figures if he does not believe me.

Stephen Crabb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: In a second, but let me just deal with this important point. This debate is taking place partly because the Conservative party wanted to have it be known that this country was in a critical position-the Conservatives are attacking not the Liberal Democrats, but the Government on that. My job is not to defend the Government; it is to try to ensure that people who were bound to have been alarmed and, unsurprisingly, have been are at least reassured that there is the security of supply that they need to know will see us through this winter and into the months beyond. The figures on the percentage of natural gas supply imported by comparable countries are as follows: Austria 82; France 98; Belgium 100; Germany 83; Italy 90; Spain 100; Czech Republic 98; and Ireland 91. What is the figure for the UK? It is 26 per cent. The reality is that we are in an entirely different league.
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells knows that we have had the Rough storage facility for a long time, and that it would take 64 days to empty it. That is not my figure but the one provided by National Grid. The facility does not, in any event, have the capacity to deliver a sufficient amount to empty it in eight days, but we do not need to draw on it fully anyway, because we are continuing to produce and distribute a huge amount of supply from our own resources. I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the people working for National Grid and out there in the North sea and elsewhere.
	In the past 10 years, the market, supported by the Government, has delivered on-stream the interconnector with Norway, which brings huge supplies. Norway has fantastic capacity-the largest by a mile of any country in Europe. We also have the interconnector with Holland, which acts as a sort of collector for other supply.

John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but he has accused my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) of producing false statistics. That seems to be contrary to the rules of the House, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw the accusation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: An allegation relating to whether information is correct or not is a matter of debate, and there should be an opportunity in the debate to correct it. As I am on my feet, I should like to say that time is precious and the House will want the debate to be fully comprehensive. The Front Benchers have taken up a considerable chunk of time with the speeches that we have already heard. I shall therefore maintain the eight-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches for the first two speeches-one from either side-then I shall reduce it to five minutes.

Simon Hughes: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker. My speech will be considerably shorter than those of the two Front Benchers who have spoken.
	The idea that all our sources of supply could fail at the same time is just unfeasible. We need to ensure that the public understand that the position that was either alluded to or, certainly, interpreted by the Conservatives recently is clearly wrong. I want to cite certain objective commentators who can confirm that, so that the House will know that I am not making party political comments.  The Daily Telegraph is not a natural supporter of the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, yet, on 11 January, it stated:
	To be clear, it is highly unlikely that we will run out of gas: we are not facing the prospects of old ladies freezing in their homes as large swathes of residential customers have their supplies cut off.
	Of course, we have become a net importer of gas, and we will import more.
	Most importantly, on 6 January, National Grid's spokesman made an immediate response to the comments by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells earlier in the week, stating:
	We are absolutely not going to run out of gas...The UK is well supplied.
	National Grid dismissed the hon. Gentleman's figure of eight days as a meaningless number, because it ignored the amount of gas being imported and the fact that nearly half of UK demand is met by North sea production. National Grid has given further commentary in the press in the last few days, citing the official figures published at the end of last year in the latest edition of its review Transporting Britain's Energy. They show that the potential supply from UK power stations is 28 per cent. above demand, and the review forecasts that this excess will continue through to 2016 and beyond.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we have an adequate supply now and for the foreseeable future. There is no likelihood of it running out, and the only ones who have suffered are those companies who had negotiated an interruptible supply contract, which rewarded them with a lower price. They knew that their supply would be reduced for a limited period if demand was creating pressure. That is what happened, and it seems to be entirely commercially proper. They knew exactly what would happen in those circumstances.

Greg Clark: The hon. Gentleman has quoted various people, but he has not been able to produce a single quotation proving that I implied or stated that the gas supply of any residential customer was likely to be cut off. I mentioned the Engineering Employers Federation, which said that the supplies of some of its members had been cut off. He should bear in mind what was said about the situation by his colleague the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming). He said:
	It is like driving blindfold on a cliff. You might go over the edge.
	Does that not reflect the concern that we feel, and about which I still maintain that the hon. Gentleman is still rather complacent?

Simon Hughes: I have spoken to my hon. Friend and I disagree with his analysis. That is not the official position of our party, just as there are members of the hon. Gentleman's party who do not always adopt his official position-not least on issues connected with climate change and the Copenhagen conference, which we debated recently.
	I am afraid that, intentionally or unintentionally, those comments were alarmist, and I know from information I have been given that they have resulted in some customers of gas suppliers turning their gas down or off for fear that they will not have a supply in the future. That is not the message that we should send to the vulnerable and poor, who are most at risk in weather such as this.
	Of course we know that certain of our plants will be decommissioned. Of course we need more storage, but much has already come on-stream and much is in the planning process. We need to ensure that that planned storage capacity can be turned into reality around the country. The new access to liquid petroleum gas in Milford Haven and the Isle of Grain, which, to be fair, the Secretary of State mentioned, has given us a whole new opportunity, and that trend is likely to continue.

Stephen Crabb: I think the hon. Gentleman means liquefied natural gas. Can he explain why, at the 2005 general election, his party opposed the LNG developments in Milford Haven, and can he tell us where the extra 10 per cent. of gas supply going into the grid today from those two terminals would be if the Liberal Democrats were running energy policy?

Simon Hughes: I can give the hon. Gentleman-my friend-an honest answer to his first question. No, I cannot explain that, and I am not going to try. It seems to me that, in retrospect if not in advance, it was clearly a good idea. I have certainly never opposed it, and nor have my colleagues on the Front Bench.
	We live in a changing energy world involving different sorts of imports and different sorts of access to imports, and-again, the Government have understood this-new sources are likely to come on-stream. Last Friday's announcement by the Government about offshore wind was extremely welcome, and, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), we have a fantastic opportunity to achieve world leadership in tidal power in the Pentland Firth. If that opportunity were developed to the full, this country could have the capacity for the most resource from tidal power anywhere in the world, not just for our own use but also for export purposes.
	The Liberal Democrats do not believe that we need the nuclear option as part of the energy security mix. That is a known position, although obviously there are differences of view in our party as in others. Our belief is based not least on evidence that in other countries nuclear is normally, if not always, delivered late and very expensively, and that the same would be the case if it were developed again in this country. I have to say that I still do not understand the Conservatives' position on the nuclear industry. It appears to be supportive when we listen to some Conservative Front Benchers, but entirely opposed when we listen to their environmental and energy advisers. No doubt the Conservatives' position would be equally complicated if they were to gain any form of majority after the next election.
	We are certain that microgeneration will also add to our capacity. It is small at the moment, but there is a consensus that it has huge potential. I believe that if the Government had an appropriate feed-in tariff they could encourage microgeneration, and we hope that that will happen.
	The other side of the equation is that the energy security issue would have been much better addressed had the Government succeeded in the area in which I believe they have failed most. They have not helped people to reduce their demand and need for energy. The fact is that 99 per cent. of homes are not properly insulated to independently established standards. Despite all the protestations, we do not yet have a comprehensive scheme for warm homes in our country. We know what a great difference proper insulation would make, yet the Government have failed abysmally on a measure that my party has been arguing for 25 years is the most important way in which we can become more energy efficient, because reductions in demand and consumption have as great a part to play as anything else. Gearóid Lane is managing director of British Gas communities and new energy, and the following quotation is taken from an article he wrote for this month's  Parliamentary Brief:
	We have just completed what we believe to be the largest ever piece of customer energy consumption research, analysing 64 million meter readings between 2006 and 2008 and correlating consumption savings with actions customers have taken to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. For example, after separating out the impact of price and weather, our data shows a reduction in gas consumption of 18 per cent. for the customers every year for whom we install insulation, and a 21 per cent. fall in gas consumption for the 100,000 customers every year for whom we install a new boiler.
	The real prize in energy efficiency-and thus in reduction in consumption-will be won if all our homes, schools, hospitals and industrial and commercial buildings are properly insulated and we did not waste so much of the energy that we consume. That is where the Government have failed most, because we still have a very partial, piecemeal and inadequate programme for achieving those goals.
	Obviously, we are always going to be interdependent with other countries around us and throughout the rest of the world. Our energy security is dependent on what happens in the rest of the world, and, sadly, there have been some disastrous actions in recent years. The invasion of Iraq has been harmful in this regard, as it had a knock-on effect on energy supplies; oil production in Iraq is now up, but not up to pre-war levels. There is also a lack of support, certainly from the Conservative party, for a European energy policy co-ordinated in such a way as to bring us all together. From what I have heard from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, his party's ideas are entirely inappropriate to meet the challenges of the next decades. The Liberal Democrats believe we need not only to be firm in dealing with emissions and climate change, because we must have a zero-emissions policy and a carbon neutral, or zero-carbon, future, but to have an integrated European future. If we are really going to achieve energy security, we not only have to produce as much of our own energy as possible, but we have to be enthusiastic leaders in the campaign for a European supergrid so that the energy produced throughout Europe-whether from solar power in the Mediterranean, hydroelectric power in Norway, tidal power in Scotland, or renewables throughout our country-can be shared to give us all collective security. The UK should aim to be more energy independent, but the best security for all of us is for the whole of Europe to become energy self-sufficient. That is what will give us the security we need. If the Conservative party were a bit more enthusiastic about Europe in this context, that might give consumers and industry a little more hope of the prospect of a secure future if-although I do not think this will happen-it were to form the Government in the near future.

Malcolm Wicks: Understandably, the context for much of this debate has been the appalling conditions facing our country this winter, and we should remember the elderly at risk from the cold. We often talk about global warming, but many of our elderly would say that the chance of warmth would be a fine thing in their living rooms and bedrooms this winter. That is an urgent social issue. However, I want to begin my remarks by talking about energy security in the longer term and by dealing with the matter in a global context.
	When the world comes out of economic recession, the global demand for energy will resume its previous trajectory and, depending on our success in respect of climate change, the International Energy Agency estimates that global energy demand could increase between 20 and 40 per cent. by 2030.
	History is playing a trick on the British isles. At this time of globally increased demand for energy from the great emerging nations of India, China and the rest, we are moving to a position of much greater import dependency. For our country that represents not just a challenge in relation to energy supply, but a challenge that has implications for our foreign policy. When we talk about energy security, what do we mean? We should mean not just the important issue of where we get the stuff from. We should talk about our need for energy security with imports, which does not jeopardise our capacity to have an independent foreign policy that takes account of human rights and democracy, including in the countries that will be supplying much of our energy.
	When Tony Blair as Prime Minister said that energy policy and energy security in the 21st century could become as important to a nation's defence and security as conventional armed forces, he was at least raising an important hypothesis for us to discuss.
	During the debate we have considered some of the trends affecting our country. Yes, there is a great deal of resource still in the North sea-much to be explored in the future west of Shetland, and so on. Nevertheless, our gas and oil from the North sea are in decline by some 6 or 8 per cent. a year. That is a fact of life, although we must do our best to push the line in the right direction. Meanwhile, our nuclear energy capacity has declined from 30 per cent. at its peak to about 15 per cent. today. We know the story of coal and the missed opportunity there in an earlier generation. Our renewables are contributing more and more each year but still a very small percentage.
	We must be as smart as we can in our foreign policy on energy so that we are in the game of diversity, as the Secretary of State says. We must not be over-dependent on any one fuel. We must avoid the dangers of a new dash for gas, which seriously concerns me. We should not source too much of our energy from any one company, region or country. We should build up our links with countries that are important to us, such as Qatar and in particular Norway. With the right approach, we could secure more gas from Norway.
	We need diversity, and we need to ensure that in future, despite the trend towards import dependency, we secure as much of our energy indigenously, from within the British isles and our seas, as possible. That is a recipe for the Secretary of State's policy on renewables. The development towards 15 per cent. of our energy coming from renewables by 2020 is as much about energy security as it is about climate change. The two go together.
	There is a role for coal. To ignore coal would be a national security disaster-hence colleagues talk perfectly properly about the importance of carbon capture and storage. Nuclear must play a key role. It is important for climate change and for the nation's security. In my report to the Prime Minister, to which the Secretary of State kindly referred, I go as far as to say that if by 2030 some 35 to 40 per cent. of our electricity was coming from nuclear, that would be sensible for the nation's security as well as for global warming. There is far more that we can do to reduce energy demand, not just in housing but across the industrial process and in transport.
	In the final few minutes available to me, I shall turn from that macro perspective to a much more specific perspective on gas. As I said, I fear that there could be a new dash for gas, partly because gas power stations are far easier to build than nuclear and some other kinds of power stations. That needs to be avoided. Gas is an important part of the mix, but it should not be over-dominant. There are issues about gas supply in the UK that I set out in my report to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, which I know the Government are taking seriously and to which they will respond in due course. I do not expect a response today.
	One such issue is that, compared with many of our continental partners, we have a relative lack of long-term contracts for gas. Companies tend to buy short-term, or sometimes spot. Is that a problem? When we say that companies have a supply obligation, what does that really mean? In the course of the inquiry for my report, I found that the supply obligation is a bit like jelly-difficult to get to grips with. My understanding, and that of those who advised me, is that in our present system there is no way for National Grid or the regulator to establish whether, in aggregate, there is likely to be sufficient availability of gas during any one year or any one winter. That does not mean that the gas will not be there, because companies might buy spot or short-term, but it is not a very secure position. Having been Minister for Energy and having had to take my share of responsibility for these things, I found myself rather less confident about some of this than the Liberal Democrat spokesman-that is a bit strange, is it not? When I did my report, that raised in my mind some serious issues about what we mean by the supply obligation. The regulator is looking into that, as is the Secretary of State, but we need to consider it carefully.
	My final point is about gas storage, which is a more complex issue than those on the Opposition Front Bench-perhaps both Front Benches-fully understand. The Secretary of State said that there are arguments against strategic storage, and I understand that; but there are arguments for it, as well. It is a question of balance. If we simply go in for commercial storage, we must recognise that much of it is owned by German companies and in certain winters some of it, from places such as Rough, flows towards the continent. How do we secure in extremis-in emergency conditions-the stored gas that can be used first and foremost for British business and British homes?

John Gummer: I refer the House to my declaration of interest.
	I very much take on board the Secretary of State's remark that we want the facts and a robust analysis. That is why I start by repeating what I said earlier-that I congratulate him on changing the way we look at these things compared with the 10 years that preceded the last White Paper. The trouble was that we were working on the basis of a White Paper without any figures-nearly all the dates and targets had been removed, with only the 50-year one left. We therefore had a situation in which nobody could have their feet held to the fire because nobody had a target that was serious and could be kept to. I honour the right hon. Gentleman very much-this may be embarrassing for him-because he has changed the whole atmosphere and we can now have a proper debate about energy in a way that was not possible for a long period. He is suffering for that, and so are the rest of us.
	Starting on a personal level, I recently had a problem in my constituency that arose because somebody on the Army base did not fill a tank, which meant that a lot of my constituents did not have any gas. That was nothing to do with a national problem or any of the arguments that we have heard today, but simply a local problem. When we talk about energy security, let us realise that there are some local issues, as well as national ones, and that they are very serious for people.
	How do we organise ourselves so that there is the diversity that we need, not only in terms of supply but as between the various forms of generation? I worry that we have had too much emphasis on process and far too little on outcomes. I am a great believer in renewable energy; I do not think anybody could criticise me on that score. Ultimately, however, we should be aiming to have the most cost-effective way of getting energy security and lowering our emissions. It may be better to provide more support for low-carbon generation than to put all our eggs in the basket of renewables. I say that not because I want fewer renewables but because we have to get there quickly. I would like to see a greater emphasis on outcomes than on process. For example, people in the British wind energy industry often argue on the basis of how wonderful wind is. I want to have the lowest carbon production of energy that we can have-I do not mind how we do it. Tomorrow the mix will be different from what it is today, but let us ensure that we do not miss the important issue, which is how we get the energy we need.
	That leads me to say that I am terribly disappointed with the Liberal Democrats, but I suppose I should expect that. It is no good their sitting there saying, We are against nuclear power, when in fact it is an essential part of any delivery. In my constituency we are very keen on having it, but I say to the Secretary of State that he is wrong about the planning arrangements. He is right about the first bit, which we all agree on-making the national decision about safety and need-but it is essential that there be a small local inquiry by somebody who is not one of his people but an independent person who can listen to the local issues.
	That is not going to happen. We are to have another lot of apparatchiks under another lot of quangoists, who will come around looking at us sniffily. Dame Deirdre Hutton will be around again, telling everybody what to do. My constituents want an opportunity to say in public what they want in relation to the dualling of the bypass and the other issues that affect them. They want to know that they will be listened to by an independent person who then advises the Government, not by some Government-appointed apparatchik.
	We must also reduce demand. I am a great enthusiast for a lot of the things that the Secretary of State is doing, but many of the details are not right yet. I was appalled to discover that the carbon commitment arrangements will exclude very large numbers of very big users because of the peculiar decision that if they do not have a half-hour meter arrangement, it does not matter how much they use. That means that a large chain of small shops could use exactly the same total amount of energy as a smaller chain with larger shops, but one will pay and the other will not. The effect will be serious, and it is a stupid thing to have happened. I am sure that he had nothing to do with it, but I merely say to him that it can be changed rapidly. Although charming, the explanation that I received is not really very effective.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that those of us who have largely supported his activities will have to be, to use his word, robust in sometimes saying to him, This is just not right. If we are going to win this battle, we all have to be prepared to speak out and speak clearly. That leads to the fundamental question of how we can reduce our use of energy and produce it efficiently so that our national security position is improved. That requires a much faster move towards smart metering and smart grids. He has done us a great favour by getting on with it, but we need to get on with it very much faster. There are various ways to do that, and I hope he will be open to some dramatically different suggestions as to how to achieve that aim. We also have to do more to ensure that when we have opportunities to reduce our energy use, we take them. I am not sure that we are doing that fast enough, and I want to press the urgency of the matter on him.
	I wish to say something to my Front-Bench colleagues. We will not achieve what we need to unless we use every single possible weapon. There is a way of increasing our efficiency in Europe that will make a very big difference if we are only prepared to work with our colleagues in the European Union. We have to be tough about that, because we really must use the EU as effectively as possible to deliver that end.
	I say to the Government that they should move faster and accept that they are behindhand because of what has happened so far. I say to members of my own party that we have to use every mechanism possible. I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is not acceptable to go on with a theological position that is intolerable, intolerant and unacceptable-but they are, after all, Liberal Democrats, so we expect that from them. They will pay a big price for it at the next election, when people realise that the real opponents of combating climate change are Liberal Democrats.

Elliot Morley: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and I welcome this debate on energy security. However, I was surprised about the alarmist headlines about eight days' supply. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) generally makes a reasoned and well balanced contribution to such debates and there are real issues to address, but I agree with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that alarming industry and domestic consumers does not help-I realise that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells did not mention domestic consumers, but people often do not read beyond the headlines, and his statement was unjustified.
	That is not to say that we should not address storage and supply to local industries. I had a case in my constituency of a company on an interruptible supply having its gas cut off, but that happened not because of a shortage of gas but because of pressure problems, which were related to cold, distribution and infrastructure-there were a number of reasons, and they may well need to be addressed. When it comes to choosing which companies have their supplies cut off, there are problems with advance notice. In addition, some companies have an alternative source, but some do not, and there is a problem with how long each is cut off. There should be a fair rotation because of the impact on certain companies compared with their rivals. I want to put on record the fact that I received enormous support and advice from the Secretary of State, who demonstrated his knowledge of the issues when I raised them with him. I am glad to say that the supply was reinstated, protecting 300 jobs locally and 1,500 nationally.
	There are issues to address but, generally speaking, bearing in mind that we are in the coldest period that we have had for 30 years, supplies of electricity and gas have been pretty good, and I add my support to those who will ensure that that continues through the winter months.

John Hemming: On today's figures, National Grid estimates that for a one in 20 winter, 502 million cubic metres of gas a day will be needed, but today it could produce only 447 cubic metres. Is that acceptable?

Elliot Morley: It is acceptable if gas supplies are maintained. In fact, the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey gave a good, detailed analysis of the capacity and reserves, which I encourage the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) to look at. That demonstrates that diversifying our supply and moving towards a low-carbon supply is good not only in relation to climate change but in addressing the potential problems of security of supply, fuel poverty, jobs and investment. Moving towards a low-carbon economy has a range of advantages.
	On fuel poverty, which is related to energy supply in the current circumstances, I welcome what has been done on insulating people's homes through the Warm Front programme. Energy efficiency is one of the cheapest and most effective ways of reducing energy demand and helping to meet social demand, and it improves the availability of supply. However, we need to do an awful lot more in the private rented sector on creating mechanisms to improve insulation.
	Incidentally, I welcome the improvement in cold weather payments: my constituency will be receiving two weeks' payments. I know that this is not the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, but there are some eligibility anomalies, because some people on disability living allowance do not receive the payments. Those anomalies need to be addressed in discussions with other Departments.
	We need to encourage more renewables. I welcome what has been done, including the recent announcement of the enormous expansion of offshore. That is of particular local interest in my constituency. The Humber is very well placed to be a centre for the construction and maintenance of offshore wind farms, and for CCS and biomass development. Jobs in engineering and support go with those things, not least in the construction of the steel that will go into the towers that will be built. Those developments will mean jobs and investment, much to the benefit of local people.
	I want to make one last, quick point. We need to encourage as great a diversity of supply as possible. Micropower has enormous potential, which has not yet been realised. I very much welcome what the Government have done on feed-in tariffs; it is exactly the right way forward. However, what is being proposed is not enough to kick-start the sector. It would be a lot better if the measures could be front-loaded to a higher feed-in tariff, which could then be tapered off, to give some incentive to get the industry going. Other measures could be introduced, such as extending the boiler scrappage scheme, which I also welcome, to combined heat and power boilers; I know that we are at the beginning of their commercialisation.
	We need to use every tool and every incentive available, because we have to move to a low-carbon economy as quickly as possible. All political parties have a responsibility to get that message over to the public. The changes have to be made. We must have the planning procedure that brings them forward and we have to get behind the investment incentives, to make sure that it all happens.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who speaks with great authority on these matters. I want to step back from the problems caused by the cold weather snap and try to examine some of the more strategic issues.
	Energy security is inescapably a duty of Governments, and this Government have let matters drift. We have heard in this debate about the decline in oil and gas reserves in British waters, the retirement of coal-burning stations because of emissions controls, and the predicted decommissioning of nuclear stations.
	What is even more worrying is what is coming at us in the opposite direction because of tightening world markets and global trends, one of which is the simple fact of population increase. The population of the world is still going up by nearly 1 million every five days. If these people are to have any kind of standard of living, they are going to use increasing quantities of energy; during the next 50 years, the human race will probably consume more energy than it has used in the entire course of human history to date.
	There are also political developments, with countries such as China seeking to secure their energy supply chain in a new scramble for Africa. Countries such as Russia and Venezuela are explicitly using their energy reserves as a foreign policy weapon. All that adds up to an extremely worrying global situation, just as the Government have completely taken their eye off our domestic needs. There is also our economic vulnerability; we are already running a very big balance of payments deficit in energy. That will get worse. We have had a currency devaluation, which has made us all poorer in world terms. That will not cure the problem of the financial deficit in energy unless the Government take action.
	I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) was rather too kind about the Government's record. We will all remember-or should do-the energy White Paper of 2003. In my view, it was one of the most irresponsible documents ever issued by a modern Government. It effectively shut off nuclear power development completely. Sadly, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) is not attending this debate. She might be an extremely incompetent plotter against the Prime Minister, but she was a great deal worse as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Not only did she issue that dreadful White Paper, but she sold Westinghouse, the last of the British hopes for nuclear power generation.
	The consequences of that White Paper have been to reduce us from being a possible world leader to the status of subcontractor. That is extremely serious at a time when even the Government are trying to restart our nuclear programme. All that was known at the time about our decommissioning of nuclear reactors and the decline in gas and oil reserves, but instead of a concerted programme, there has been an absurd over-reliance on renewables.
	I am not anti all renewables, and I have an interest to declare in a possible hydro scheme, but as for wind power, I noticed that the big windmill on the M4 near Reading that sometimes goes round was stationary during the recent cold snap. It is not only unwise but dangerous to suppose that renewables can make up the gap. That can be done only by nuclear power, which is virtually carbon-free in operation and is a mature technology that has been with us for more than 50 years. We could have been a world beater. There is a missed opportunity there, which we must hasten to correct. The problem of storage must be addressed, but this solution could overcome the problem of security. Uranium supplies are virtually inexhaustible, and we have large storage facilities for plutonium and enriched uranium in this country.
	My last request is for the Government to participate in the next generation-the generation 4-nuclear power station programme worldwide, so that once more we can export not just energy but nuclear technology.

Alan Simpson: It is extremely unfortunate that the claim about there being eight days of gas supply left will fall into the same category as people being 45 minutes from extinction by Saddam's nuclear weapons. I say unfortunate because there is a crisis in energy security that has to be addressed. However, it needs to be addressed over the next eight years, not the next eight days. The 2008 House of Lords report on energy security is a benchmark to which we all ought to refer, because between 2012 and 2017 energy capacity margins in the UK will fall below the 20 per cent. security margin to which we have become accustomed. We need to have a debate, and it needs to take place now, but it should be about what we do over the coming eight years.
	There are two types of security crisis. The first is a crisis driven by the supply levels and the second is a crisis of security. It is important to recognise that the affordability issue in connection with energy security is sadly epitomised by the deaths of Jean and Derek Randall, who froze to death in their own bungalow last week. They are just two examples from among the 5 million households in Britain living in fuel poverty, for whom energy security is a day by day, week by week, winter by winter crisis that they have to get through. Those households are the most severely affected by the fact that household average energy bills have risen to £1,225 a year-more than double what they were in 2003, and a 33 per cent. increase from what they were at the beginning of 2008. There is an ongoing crisis in energy affordability that households across the UK have to face.
	The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs assessed what it would cost us if, as a country, we were to commit ourselves to eradicating fuel poverty in housing by 2016 or 2017. The estimate was that it would involve an extra cost of about £3 billion a year. If we were to do that, 83 per cent. of the households in Britain would be taken out of fuel poverty by that time. In energy security terms, one of the most critical results would be a reduction of household domestic energy consumption by 56 per cent. The first of the measures that we can take that will dramatically change both quality of life and energy security is related to demand reduction.
	The second issue that the Government need to address concerns the shift into renewables. I know that the Secretary of State has been putting up a heroic battle over the feed-in tariff framework that he is about to announce at the end of this month or the beginning of next month. I have to say that my understanding is that he is not winning that battle.

Colin Challen: My hon. Friend will have read the press comment that the expansion of our offshore wind generation will create a lot of foreign jobs for well-established companies. Does he agree that if we have a higher feed-in tariff than is currently proposed, we will create a critical mass in our own small and medium-sized enterprise sector, which can get into the market on a smaller scale?

Alan Simpson: That is absolutely right, provided that we set sufficiently ambitious tariffs, which I think need to include a three-year period and a 10 per cent. internal rate of return. That will give us the sort of renewables industry that the UK does not have at the moment. Those who say that a cost will have to be paid should look at the Deutsche Bank report that analysed the effect of that approach in Germany and pointed out the merit-order effect-avoided energy consumption from the most expensive fossil fuels has resulted in savings to the German Government of €9.4 billion. They achieved that simply by setting themselves that level of ambition. If we stick with our current low ambitions, we will fail miserably to take the opportunity that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) rightly points out, is there for the taking. It would deliver job security as well as energy security.
	We also need to engage with a revolution in our energy thinking. I urge all Members to look at what might come to be referred to as the LichtBlick revolution. At the end of the month, a collaboration between Volkswagen and the LichtBlick company will propose a shift in energy systems thinking, to be piloted in Germany. Instead of building a power station, they are considering 2 GW of energy generation, which could cover the whole city of Hamburg. That will be based on the installation of 100,000 combined heat and power units in homes, factories, schools and health centres, all of which are not only domestically and individually controlled, but centrally co-ordinated. As energy for the city is required, instruction levels can be raised, allowing 2 GW of energy to be delivered collectively from people's own homes.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proposed system of feed-in tariffs is absolutely unsuited to such an arrangement? We need a revolution in how the feed-in tariffs work, but it should not just come from the bottom layer; we need to raise the level and involve large factories as well.

Alan Simpson: Absolutely. It is absurd that we in the UK are restricted to a 5 MW threshold, when we should have a 10 MW threshold-or no ceiling at all, as is the case in the rest of Europe. We need to consider how our towns, cities and regions can deliver their collective energy security on a level that meets their needs and in a way that is collectively owned and accountable. If we can grasp that vision, we can deliver the energy security that the country needs. That will not come from a reliance on energy tyrannies or fiefdoms elsewhere; it will come from an ability to meet those needs from our own resources. However, all that needs to be driven by a different vision, and one on a bolder scale, than is currently on offer in any of our policies.

Richard Ottaway: I declare an interest as an adviser to the South Hook LNG terminal, which has featured in this debate today. It is a hugely significant development, and it comes as no surprise that it was opened by Her Majesty the Queen and his excellency the Emir of Qatar earlier this year.
	We have to put this debate into context. We are going through the worst winter in decades, and in the past few days, leaving aside the debate about storage, there have been shortages. As the Secretary of State said, there have been problems with the Troll field, and demand has soared at the same time. The fact that the lights are still on is due to the investment in LNG, not just at Milford Haven, but with the British Gas terminal on the Isle of Grain. That is why things are still going ahead. Those two terminals are now supplying 10 per cent. of the UK's gas. Without that storage and capacity, the lights would be off, we would be on a three-day week and the Labour party would be at 20 per cent. in the opinion polls.
	The Secretary of State said that the Government had been proactive in that development. Of course they have. They have been good about it. However, the initial decision was a financial one made about seven or eight years ago. Investors did not do that just because they were concerned about the UK's energy position; they did it because they wanted to make money. The price signals at the time looked good, but now they do not look so attractive. That is why the Opposition motion's call for a new framework to attract the necessary investment is so necessary. I am astonished that the Government do not accept that part of the motion in their amendment.
	We have to look at this debate in a global context, and in that respect there are four statistics that are very relevant indeed. The first is that oil and gas will remain the primary source of energy and that, together with coal, they will supply 85 per cent. of global energy needs in 2030. Secondly, by 2020, energy consumption by the developing world will overtake consumption by the industrialised world. Thirdly, natural gas is the fastest growing primary energy source. Fourthly-this is a statistic on which I differ from my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks)-global growth in electricity demand will grow by 55 per cent. by 2030, which raises the question whether low-carbon policies can match that growth.
	The key issue to arise from all that is that in the years to come, there will be a seller's market. There will be greater competition for equipment and skills, which will cause serious problems for electricity producers. The key questions for policy makers are these. Will the investment meet the growth in demand? Is nuclear power part of the answer? There is a consensus that the answer to that is yes. Should we bet the house on renewables? Probably. Will the grid cope? Perhaps. Who will pay for that? A lot of uncertainty is caused by those factors, and that influences the debate.
	On infrastructure, there remains the issue raised by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), the spokesman for the Scottish National party, about the grid connections. We need financial incentives. Planning is now resolved, but where are the policies on tariff structures, renewable credits, CO2 pricing, construction capacity, and fuel and site availability? All that produces a huge amount of uncertainty, which explains why so little new generating capacity has been produced over the past five years. There is now just 6.8 GW of capacity under construction, 5 GW of which will come from gas. We have planned, in the pipeline between now and 2016, consent to build 11 GW of capacity, of which 8 GW will come from gas.
	With 15 GW of generating capacity dropping out in 2015, I would say that we need all that capacity. There will be a large dip in capacity, so my advice to whoever forms the next Government would be to ensure that creating that extra capacity becomes their No. 1 policy priority. There is a huge amount going on, but if the market does not respond, the Government will have to become far more interventionist than they have been so far.

Mark Hendrick: The world is facing a resource crisis. The global population is expected to increase to 9 billion by 2050. Not only is the world increasing in population; it is becoming richer. As nations such as India and China enjoy economic growth, their citizens want and can afford to consume like we do. In China, for instance, the number of cars will increase from 4 million in 2000 to 130 million by 2020. However, as demand increases our resources are becoming even scarcer. Oil and gas supplies are becoming more costly to extract. The price of oil might have dropped from the eye-watering peaks of 2008, but it has risen again quickly, to approximately $80 a barrel today.
	The European Union's dependence on foreign fuel is also rising. Europe is now the world's biggest importer of energy and the second largest consumer. Europe depends on just three countries-Russia, Norway and Algeria-for nearly half its supply of gas. As has been said in this debate, there have been concerns in recent years that Russia would use that control for political purposes.
	In addition, we face the constant threat of global terrorism. Al-Qaeda has threatened to attack what Osama bin Laden calls the hinges of the world economy, of which energy is the most crucial. The resource crisis means that the main production sites are the sources of rising tensions. About a third of the world's civil wars are in oil-producing states. Economic power is also shifting to oil and gas-rich states and the elites within them. As Thomas Friedman has argued, soaring oil prices strengthen anti-democratic regimes.
	We know that energy production is a major contributor to climate change. It is therefore impossible to discuss energy without referring to the impact on our environment, and ultimately on human welfare. As it is such a huge part of the climate change problem, energy must be at the heart of any solution.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman has been making some quite alarmist comments about imported energy sources. Does he recognise that the real stresses on the UK energy system in recent years have come from problems such as the Buncefield explosion, the fire at the Rough gas storage facility and, in recent days, ice in the pipelines that connect us to the Norwegian gas field? Those kinds of problems are the immediate challenges to UK energy security, not the threats from terrorists that he is talking about.

Mark Hendrick: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the comment of a Conservative Front Bencher: we should expect the unexpected.
	To address the twin challenges of energy security and climate change, the UK must implement various measures. Energy must be used more efficiently and we should have a diverse supply of low and zero-carbon energy sources. It is reported that International Energy Agency analysis suggests that serious action on climate change requires a
	complete transformation of the energy sector...in all countries.
	It is important that we should act as part of a united Europe. It is in the interests of all major consumers to have a predictable and rules-based approach to managing energy security and climate change. It is only through co-ordinated action with our European neighbours that we can achieve that. For example, Russia is dependant on Europe as a consumer market, with 80 per cent. of its oil exports and 60 per cent. of its gas exports coming into the EU. It is essential that Europe acts collectively to maximise that consumer influence. Similarly, Europe will have the weight to negotiate with China, India, Japan and the USA only if it is a united Europe. Indeed, we recently saw action of that kind at Copenhagen.
	Energy has been at the heart of the European Union since its conception, and it remains there today. In 2007, EU leaders recognised the twin challenges of climate change and energy security, and agreed to some laudable goals on energy usage, renewable energy and reducing emissions. Europe also co-operates on investments, technology transfer, mutual access to markets and predictability in commercial relations, particularly with countries such as Russia and others in northern Africa, the Gulf region and central Asia. The UK has played a central role in shaping that European action and is at the heart of international agreements. I join other hon. Members in welcoming the plans to develop a European supergrid.
	A great deal of progress and development is required on clean coal and on carbon capture and storage. I know that energy efficiency is high on the Government's priority list, but we have to do a great deal more to make homes more efficient. I welcomed the Warm Front programme, which did a lot to insulate homes. In my constituency, 8,000 homes received loft insulation, double glazing and other measures to improve energy efficiency.
	It will not be easy to switch to being a low-carbon economy. That change will force nations to co-operate and will require unprecedented development and use of existing and new technologies. Renewables, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage will all come into the equation. All that will cost about £10.5 trillion globally between now and 2030, but those costs will be vastly outweighed by what we will reap in environmental and energy security.

Michael Weir: Several speakers have talked about the oil and gas industry in the North sea, but I would caution Members about writing it off. The Energy and Climate Change Committee report shows that this industry still has a future, not only because there is a large amount of oil and gas in the North sea, but because there is an opportunity to use the skills developed in the North sea to move forward into renewables industries, particularly offshore wind and tidal and wave power, which could be the key to much of our energy for the future.
	I agree with what the right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks) said about the dash for gas. Generating electricity might well not be the best use of our gas reserves, but the fact is that gas is a major part of our electricity generation at the moment. Under current proposals, 33 gas plants have received planning permission but are not yet in operation and another nine are under consideration, totalling about 15 MW already planned to come on stream. They will play a considerable part in our energy provision for the foreseeable future.
	In Committee, I proposed an amendment to the Energy Bill to try to get the Government to look at gas combined capture and storage. The Government opposed and defeated it. I entirely understand the Government's wish to concentrate on coal in the first instance, and I understand, as do all members of the Committee, the need to get CCS for coal, but I do not understand the refusal even to consider gas for the near future. Given the amount of gas that we still use in generation, it seems to me that it is going to be part of our energy mix for the foreseeable future, so we are going to have to decarbonise gas as well. Even at this late stage, I ask the Government to think again.
	In the remaining few minutes, I want to concentrate on the vital issue of transmission charges, which I raised in an intervention. If renewables are going to play a major part in our energy mix, we will have to deal with this matter. The Government have rightly announced ambitious plans for offshore wind farms, but that energy has to come ashore, get into the national grid and be transmitted to the areas where it will be used.
	The current transmission regime was developed for a grid where power came from big coal, gas and probably nuclear stations, which were often located near the main centres of population, but it is not fit for a new century of renewables, when energy sources are in much more remote areas and there are greater difficulties in getting that energy into the national grid.
	The locational charging methodology used by Ofgem levies higher charges on generators furthest from the main centres of demand, which generally favours those in the southern part of the UK over those in Scotland. Indeed, it has been calculated that transmission charges are £21.58 per kilowatt-hour in the north of Scotland compared to an effective subsidy of £6.90 per kilowatt-hour in London. That is a lunatic system when we are looking to develop renewables. As a result, Scottish generators produce 12 per cent. of UK generation but account for 40 per cent. of the transmission costs-about £100 million a year more than their fair share.
	Wind is not the only issue here. For example, there are huge opportunities in the Pentland firth for tidal power, but we need the infrastructure to bring that power into the grid. It is not a case of putting the cost on the developer; the matter should be part of a national plan for renewables. Only last weekend, a considerable amount of controversy arose over suggestions that National Grid might be thinking of doubling or tripling charges to the islands, although it has been denied.
	Will the Minister look seriously at instructing Ofgem and National Grid to undertake an objective and open analysis of the impact of locational charging, broken down by each part of the UK and by type of generation for both current and future generation mix scenarios. That should address the key question of how much more productive or competitive a renewable project in Scotland has to be to offset the impact of a locational charge. Alternative models of charging should be considered, particularly the post stamp model, which would be in the national interest as well as in the interests of generators in Scotland. If we do not get this right, I greatly fear that we will end up-

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Charles Hendry: This debate has been all too short, but we have had some absolutely excellent contributions. They have been thoughtful, constructive and well informed, showing the House at its best in terms of the expertise that it can bring to incredibly important and relevant debates such as this. The only sadness is that, as a result of its timing, we have not been able to hear from more right hon. and hon. Members. However, the contributions that we have heard have been constructive and relevant.
	The right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), a former Minister, spoke with his usual authority. So he should do: he was Energy Minister No. 7 and No. 10 of the 15 whom there have been since the Government came to power in 1997; and based on his speech he could be Minister No. 16, too. He brought to bear his global view and understanding of the issues in a constructive and helpful speech, and he was justifiably frustrated by the fact that we have not seen the report that the Government should have published in response to his helpful and constructive paper. I hope that that response will be forthcoming.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) showed his expertise and understanding of the issues, and he delivered a clear wake-up call when he talked about the areas where progress is not fast enough. They include smart metering, smart grids and the drive to renewables and energy efficiency. I assure him that, although we recognise that in the European Union energy is a retained power, we totally understand the need to co-operate and work with our European partners to ensure the energy security that is necessary in a changing and challenging world.
	The right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) talked about the need for diversity and rightly reminded us of the importance of fuel poverty in this debate, because there is a direct link between the security of supply and fuel poverty. Security of supply challenges do not necessarily just lead to power cuts; first, they lead to price spikes, which are damaging for consumers, and particularly for businesses.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) also put the matter into a global context and talked about the international challenges that we face, including population growth. However, he reminded us clearly of the wasted opportunities and the lost years-the years when things could have been done to prepare us for the situation that we face today. Those opportunities were missed.

David Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Hendry: I hope to be forgiven if I do not give way, because we have been very short of time in this debate. If there is time towards the end of my contribution, I most certainly will give way, because I know that the hon. Gentleman has been here, waiting very patiently, throughout the debate. In fact, as he has been here so patiently throughout, I shall give way.

David Anderson: The hon. Gentleman talks about the lost years, but what about the lost years of the 1980s, when the Conservative party devastated the coal industry, privatised the utilities and left us with the mess that we are in now?

Charles Hendry: I knew that my instincts were right: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. In the 1980s, we set the market framework that delivered the cheapest energy prices in Europe for the next 20 years. The model has worked, and it has been pretty robust up to now.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who will be a great loss to this Chamber when he steps down as a Member. He made a very thoughtful and visionary speech on themes that he has made his own during his time in the House, and he described his concern to ensure that feed-in tariffs are set at the right level. We share his concern, because we had to work very hard to put those tariffs on to the statute book, and it would be a tragedy if they were set at a level that did not deliver the benefits that we hoped for.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) rightly focused on the investment that has been made and the vital contribution that liquefied natural gas terminals have made to our energy security. We heard a very thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) brought us back to gas when he talked about carbon capture and storage. We supported him in a Division on the issue in the Energy Bill Committee yesterday, and I am sorry that we could not persuade the Government to take a broader view on CCS and help Britain take a big step forward in that area.
	Much of this debate has, understandably, focused on gas storage. The Secretary of State talked about the issue, saying that we have the lowest prices in Europe, but if there were more gas storage, there would be greater price benefits to our consumers. Gas could be bought in the summer, when it is cheaper, and sold without big price spikes in the winter. There is a link between storage and pricing.
	The Secretary of State also referred to the recently published national policy statement, as if that will put right gas storage. We have done a quick check, and of the 675 pages of policy statement that the Energy and Climate Change Committee is going through, seven-1 per cent. of them-relate to gas storage. That is not quite the commitment that we are looking for.
	We have to recognise that all is not well. At the maximum level of gas storage in this country, we had 16 days. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells pointed out that we had eight days maximum storage left, and today it is down to six. Part of the problem has arisen because the Langeled pipeline has not been working at capacity, just as part of the problem four years ago was the fire at the Rough storage facility. There are no grounds for complacency because of the external pressures that are creating a real problem of demand. This is the third time in four years that we have been down to a few days of gas storage. Indeed, if it had not been for the recession-with demand overall down by 5 per cent. and industrial demand down by 15 per cent.-there is no doubt that we would be in very difficult circumstances now, and possibly having outages.
	We are in the strange position that the electricity interconnector with France is still exporting 2 GW of power at a time when our own industrial users are being asked to switch off their gas. That is something that the market decides that it wants to do, but we would be much more comfortable about that if we had more gas storage and knew that our industrial users would be able to work when they wanted to do so.
	Much of the rest of the debate dealt with the issues of electricity generation. In the Secretary of State's opening remarks-I am sorry that he is not in his place-he talked about the need to focus on the facts. He talked about wind, but he did not mention the need for massive back-up to make wind power reliable. In this cold spell, one fifth of 1 per cent. of our electricity has come from wind, which shows the extent to which back-up is necessary. He spoke about offshore wind, but he did not mention the fact that we are potentially losing some of the best companies in the country, such as Aquamarine and Pelamus, which are now looking to invest in the US and Portugal, because greater support is coming from their Governments. Nor did he mention the problems with the supply of ships, cranes, skills and funding-and apart from those problems, everything is going really well! The Secretary of State talks about the positive aspects, but he does not mention the challenges.
	The Secretary of State talked about nuclear, but he did not really comment on the fact that Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive of EDF, said this week that the key driver of investment will be a floor price in carbon. What is the Secretary of State's position on that? On carbon capture and storage, he did not talk about the need for a real Government vision on the investment in pipeline infrastructure and a body to ensure that we co-ordinate the work in that area.
	The Government's approach has been characterised by a mass of ambitious targets that sound good, but we have no road map for getting there. There is a road map for nuclear, but on everything else nobody knows who is responsible for doing what and when in order to meet the targets. That has led to Ernst and Young saying that we need £200 billion of new investment in our energy infrastructure over the next 15 years-£50 billion in the next five years-because of the failure to secure that investment in the past.
	We face a real challenge and a significant wake-up call. Several things have happened today that reinforce that point. Alistair Buchanan, the chief executive of Ofgem, has warned that Britain's gas market faces a cliff edge in 2015-16 that could cause supplies to run short by the end of the decade. Some of Britain's largest businesses have written to the  Financial Times to say:
	The bottom line is that the UK was unable to meet the needs of all consumers...As a nation, we need to take security of our energy supply more seriously.
	It has also been announced that half the members of the Chemical Industries Association say that increased gas storage is essential to future investment by their companies in the UK. Reuters is even quoting an unlikely source who should know the facts, who said today:
	There is clearly an urgent need for additional gas storage in the UK.
	We welcome the Secretary of State to the cause.
	The truth is that the Labour party has always been the party of energy insecurity. In the 1980s, it opposed the building of Sizewell B. In 1997, it was elected on a commitment to move away from gas to coal just as our coal production was beginning to decline and imports were increasing. In 2003, the Government ruled out nuclear as having any role to play in future energy policy, only to reverse that decision four years later. They have known for years about the amount of our capacity that will be decommissioned, but they have failed to secure the new investment. This debate is not just about the challenges of this week, but the longer-term issues facing our nation on which the Government have been found wanting.

David Kidney: I, too, agree that this impressive debate has shown the House at its best; the contributions, coming from people with great knowledge, forcefulness and passion, have been superb. I know that some people who wanted to speak have not been able to. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Reed) failed to have an intervention accepted by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). My hon. Friend is a superb and unique representative of his constituents and a person with great knowledge of the nuclear industry, and we would have benefited from his contributing to this debate. The same could be said of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson), who got in with a couple of telling interventions about the coal industry. He is a doughty champion for the coal sector in this country.
	I pay tribute to and thank our energy sector and its workers for ensuring that energy supplies have been maintained. Over the past 10 days, we have experienced severe weather and the most prolonged spell of freezing conditions across the United Kingdom for 29 years and there have been record levels of gas demand. The UK's energy system has coped well. There have been no unplanned interruptions to gas supply, despite the record demands. As has been widely reported, some industrial customers on commercially interruptible contracts had their supplies reduced temporarily. That was in line with commercial arrangements and is part of the normal working of the market.
	That market has also worked well, with imports responding to the need for extra gas in the UK-I include liquefied natural gas and flows through the interconnector in that. In particular, I wish to thank the National Grid Company for its role in balancing the gas system during these challenging times. Let us not forget that the electricity infrastructure has also performed well, with the faults caused by the most severe weather on 6 January being quickly addressed and the supply restored-the last few customers had it restored over the weekend. The UK electricity industry has an excellent standard of service-the reliability for 2008-09 was 99.989 per cent. That typifies the robustness of the UK's energy system and we fully intend it to be maintained this year, next year and every year.

Andrew Pelling: My point is not weather-related. Unfortunately, my constituents have been suffering from a periodic set of power cuts. It is particularly frustrating when Christmas day is spoilt for Croydon residents because of power cuts, and on 4 January, more than 4,500 residents lost out. Does the Minister think that perhaps more should be invested in maintaining the system and that perhaps the return on equity for EDF in London is too high?

David Kidney: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will make inquiries on that point and see whether I can say more after I have the facts.
	Our plans commit us to tackling climate change, ensuring security of energy supplies and keeping energy costs affordable. We want to ensure that all consumers have a fair deal. As everyone in the debate has said, the key to security of energy supply is diversity of energy supplies and sources. Last July's transition plan outlines how nuclear power, alongside a sevenfold increase in renewables and investment in clean fossil fuels, will help us to achieve a low-carbon future and secure the UK's energy supply.
	I shall say a little more about those customers. We have heard about some worrying incidents relating to elderly people who were concerned about the cost of keeping their homes warm. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) talked of people who were frightened last week by scaremongering stories in the media from the Conservatives and of elderly people feeling that they could not keep their heating on. That is an appalling state of affairs and we need to send the message from this Chamber that people must keep their heating on during this dangerously cold weather. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) reminded us of the personal cost behind the statistics on excess winter deaths. I assure the House that the Government are determined to do all that we can to eradicate fuel poverty in this country.
	Many people pointed out the obvious fact that the more energy use we can avert, the greater our success will be in cutting carbon emissions, assuring ourselves of energy security and, of course, cutting our energy costs. The Government take seriously the need for energy efficiency in many fields. One is transport, an area of policy that has not been covered, perhaps for understandable reasons, but in which there are great gains to be made through energy efficiency. Another is domestic properties, and millions of people in this country have been helped to insulate their homes by schemes such as the Government's Warm Front and the suppliers' obligation, currently called CERT-the carbon emissions reduction target.
	Let us not forget the contribution that commercial businesses need to make to avert costs in energy and reduce their carbon emissions. We help with expert advice, interest-free loans and mechanisms such as climate change agreements and the emissions trading scheme. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is no longer in the Chamber-

Rob Marris: Yes, he is.

David Kidney: Ah, there he is! Thank you.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme that begins in April. I take to heart his comments about the design of the scheme and about who will be admitted to it, but the truth is that some of the largest emitters of carbon will be entered into the scheme and they will cut their carbon emissions as well as making savings on their energy bills.
	Many hon. Members referred to the contribution of renewables, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South. Most of those who spoke in the debate gave a warm welcome to last week's announcement of the round 3 offshore wind licences. This country was already the world leader in connected energy from offshore wind, and our performance in that area is now putting a considerable distance between ourselves and the rest of the world. But we do not rely solely on wind as a source of renewable energy, important though it is. There is also biomass, hydro, solar, heat pumps and many other sources that we promote. I noted the considerable enthusiasm around the Chamber for microgeneration, and a general welcome for feed-in tariffs, which at long last will begin in this country this April.
	Many hon. Members also referred to the contribution of nuclear, including the right hon. Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Suffolk, Coastal, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks). I have already said that my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland would have liked to contribute to the debate on nuclear. I remind hon. Members that we have put in place the legal framework for new nuclear, including provisions on payment for the storage of waste and on decommissioning, and the planning changes to ensure that the process will be quick. The economic environment that we have put in place has already enabled three consortiums to commit to building new nuclear power in this country that will produce 16 GW of energy.
	Many hon. Members mentioned the importance of carbon capture and storage. What is so crucial about CCS is that, as we invest more and more in renewables, which produce electricity for the national grid intermittently, we will need the back-up that reliable sources such as coal and gas can offer. The consequences of their carbon emissions are too great to contemplate, however, without a means of abating those emissions. That is where CCS will be so important, which is why it is good that our Government are now committed to four CCS demonstration projects on a commercial scale.
	I would have liked to spend longer talking about all the points that hon. Members raised. I agree with my opposite number, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), that it has been such a good debate that it deserved more time. I started by thanking all those who have worked to ensure that our energy supplies were maintained during the period of severe weather. It has brought home to us how valuable the jobs of today's energy workers are, but I should like to address my final remarks to the energy workers of tomorrow. Let me point out to today's schoolchildren, students and young men and women that these are vital jobs to be filled. They will help us to save the planet and to keep this country's energy secure and affordable. They will be skilled, well-paid and highly respected by others. What more incentive do those young people need in order to sign up?

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	 The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 355.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	 The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 173.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	 Resolved,
	That this House notes that around 20 gigawatts of new power generation is either under construction or has been consented to; believes that during a time of historically low temperatures and the highest ever gas demand in recent days, the country's energy infrastructure has shown resilience; further notes the increase in gas import capacity by 500 per cent. in the last decade, and the increase in the diversity of sources of gas, including liquefied natural gas and gas imports through interconnectors with Norway and continental Europe; commends the Planning Act 2008, which has created the circumstances for greater onshore gas storage as well as for new nuclear power stations and other low carbon energy infrastructure, and the Energy Act 2008 which has created the circumstances for greater offshore gas storage; backs the development of the grid to make it ready for a low-carbon energy mix; supports the Government's drive towards greater energy efficiency in homes through programmes such as Warm Front, the Carbon Emissions Reductions Target and Community Energy Savings Programme, all of which contribute to fighting fuel poverty, and in businesses through programmes such as the forthcoming Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Schemes; commends the Government's wider plans to embark on the Great British Refurb, where up to seven million homes will have whole house makeovers by 2020; and further supports an approach based on strategic government and dynamic markets that maintains the country's energy security as well as developing more diverse energy supplies, including clean coal, renewable and nuclear energy.

Daniel Kawczynski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) asked an important question about western Sahara at Prime Minister's questions. In his answer, the Prime Minister stated:
	The one thing that we have tried to do is increase-indeed, double-our aid to these areas.
	I had a debate in Westminster Hall on aid to north Africa, because I feel passionately about the region. Department for International Development aid to north Africa has fallen from £3.5 million in 2003-04 down to £500,000 in 2005-06, and to £0 in 2007-08. When spending by other Departments is included, aid to north Africa was £38 million in 2003-04, falling to just £2.8 million in 2007-08. Could I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you could ask the Prime Minister, before he makes these replies, to get his facts straight?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. The clue to the answer to his question lies in his reference to a debate that has taken place. I say to the hon. Gentleman that this is essentially a matter of debate-hotly contested debate, I might add. He has placed his views on this matter, and his views of the Prime Minister's stance on it, very firmly and clearly on the record.

Business without Debate
	  
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Broadcasting

That the draft Community Radio (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 23 November, be approved -(Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Local Government (Wales) Measure 2009 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 24 November, be approved. -(Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Criminal Law

That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Mandatory Life Sentence: Determination of Minimum Term) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 25 November, be approved. -(Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Motion made,
	That, for the purposes of its approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government's assessment as set out in the Pre-Budget Report 2009 shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees). -(Mr. Blizzard.)

Hon. Members: Object.

National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)

Ordered ,
	That-
	the Lords Message of 7 January communicating a Resolution relating to National Security Strategy (Joint Committee), be now considered;
	this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution;
	and the following Standing Order be made:
	(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of 12 Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, to consider the National Security Strategy.
	(2) The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to report from time to time, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference, and to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	(3) The quorum of the committee shall be three; and
	(4) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament. -(Mr. Blizzard.)

National Security Strategy

Ordered,
	That Mr James Arbuthnot, Margaret Beckett, Sir Alan Beith, Des Browne, Malcolm Bruce, Mike Gapes, Dr Kim Howells, Peter Luff, Mr Paul Murphy, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Paddy Tipping and Keith Vaz be members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. -(Mr. Blizzard.)

Adjournment (February)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
	That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 10 February 2010, do adjourn till Monday 22 February 2010. -(Mr. Blizzard.)
	 The Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until  Wednesday 20 January (Standing Order No. 41A).

PETITIONS

Badman Report (Reading East)

Robert Wilson: I should like to present this petition on behalf of some of my constituents in Reading, East.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of persons resident in the Reading East parliamentary constituency,
	Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000700]

Incinerator (Gloucester)

Parmjit Dhanda: On behalf of my constituents in Gloucester, I should like to present this petition, which objects to the building of the 10-storey incinerator that has been proposed by Conservative-run Gloucestershire county council. It calls for the removal of incineration from the waste plan. The petition, and other associated petitions, have been signed by 1,160 of my constituents in Gloucester. I am delighted that three of Gloucestershire's Members of Parliament are here to support it.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Gloucester and surrounding areas, and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the County Council is proposing to build a large scale incinerator in or around Gloucester capable of burning 175,000 tonnes of waste, much of which could be imported from around the country.
	Further declares that the Petitioners believe that other options have not been given sufficient consideration, and that local councillors should oppose incineration and should consider other more environmentally friendly options instead.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call upon the City and County Councils to rule out incineration from Gloucestershire's waste plan.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000708]

SOVEREIGNTY OF PARLIAMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Blizzard.)

William Cash: The fundamental issue that lies at the heart of this debate is the democratic freedom of choice at the ballot box-the free choice of the voters of the United Kingdom to decide the laws under which they are to be governed and to deal with the question of who governs Britain. This is a vital matter of national interest as we approach the general election, which will probably take place in May. It is therefore also a vital element of the political manifestos.
	The issue of parliamentary sovereignty is essentially a practical one that affects every voter and every man, woman and child in the country on a daily basis in a very direct way. It invades every nook and cranny and, according to any reasonable estimate, affects at least 70 per cent. of the vast array of laws that stream out of the European Union like a tsunami, as I witnessed again today in the European Scrutiny Committee, on subjects including criminal law, state aid, financial regulation, relations with Russia and internal security.
	In practice, it is not only the individual laws that are affected but whole spheres and even the running of our Parliament, not to mention public and local authorities. This influence is everywhere, and most of the provisions do not work. There are burdens on business, and overregulation, as well as rules governing the dreadful state of our public finances, debt levels and questions of public expenditure through the absurdly named stability and growth pact, which does not provide stability, growth or a pact. The whole of our justice and criminal law system is affected, as are the regulation of the City of London and the role of the Bank of England and financial services. Family law is affected, and so are the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, the rebate, regional policy making, energy policy-which we have just debated-and the consequences of immigration.
	The European Union costs the United Kingdom £2,000 for each man, woman and child, according to the Taxpayers' Alliance, and the new, unacceptable proposals for enlargement involve countries that are sometimes neither appropriate allies nor intrinsically democratic.
	The European Union also affects foreign policy and defence. Only a few months ago one of the world's leading strategists, George Friedman of the STRATFOR foundation, described in a book the unsustainable assertions of success of the European Union that the European elite and their fellow travellers claim as being in benign chaos. He describes the European Union as a schizophrenic entity, just as I have often done. He said, as I often have, that Germany's position is unpredictable and that it
	will be engaged in traditional power politics
	with an ambivalent relationship with Russia. Russia is also important to us as a nation because of our problems with energy security and its grip on gas supplies, as we discussed in the European Scrutiny Committee today and debated on the Floor of the House this afternoon.
	The instability in Europe as a whole affects our sovereignty. We are so bound into European integration that a breakdown, with the intrinsic instabilities in the eurozone that were identified by Ralph Atkins in an 11-point article in the  Financial Times a few days ago and with unemployment rising by between 10 and 20 per cent. in many member states, buttressed by the issue of flimsy paper money, is liable to affect our sovereignty.
	I predicted in the early 1990s that, because of the lack of a sufficient safety valve, in the other European Union countries and in this country a time of economic stress would encourage the rise of the far right and rioting in the streets to fill the vacuum. There is no safety valve. The safety valve of democracy is essential for us to be able to ensure that we can maintain stability in our own country.
	Those issues are now becoming increasingly prevalent in Greece, Italy and many parts of the eurozone, with new members of the EU effectively bankrupt and reliant on state aids amounting to £254 billion and financial aid of a further £193 billion, as we heard today in the European Scrutiny Committee. All that is unmatched by any reasonable prospect of growth and enterprise in Europe under the Lisbon agenda, all of which puts intense pressure on our own parliamentary democracy. In the last year, the European Commission approved no less than £3,000 billion in aid. That speaks for itself.
	We should remind ourselves of the debates that took place at the time of the creation of the constitution of the United States and the insistence by Thomas Jefferson on the importance of states' rights and sovereignty, without going down the route of a federal system in Europe. We need to remember what John Taylor, Jefferson's great ally and amanuensis, stated in his work on the constitution of the United States:
	sovereignty is the highest degree of political power, and the establishment of a form of government, the highest proof which can be given of its existence.
	To ignore that proposition, or to bypass it, would be like discussing human biology or the genome while ignoring the arterial blood system, the supply of oxygen or the functions of the heart.
	I doubt whether the BBC will even refer to this debate or my proposals, which is as the establishment would wish it: Keep it under wraps! Don't tell the people and it will go away.

Andrew Pelling: On the point about the establishment, would it not be best to give back to the people the choice of whether sovereignty should be taken away from this place, by having a referendum on whether we should stay in the EU on the same day as a general election?

William Cash: I have made my position clear repeatedly-probably about 10 times in debates on various Bills over the past 15 or 20 years. I believe that there should be a referendum, as I indicated in the debate on the Maastricht referendum all those years ago. Indeed, when my Bill on parliamentary sovereignty is published tomorrow, Members will see in it references to a referendum on parliamentary sovereignty, because parliamentary sovereignty involves the notion of an Act of Parliament to authorise a referendum.

David Drew: I might not share all the hon. Gentleman's analysis, but I certainly share the belief that our parliamentary sovereignty is being completely undermined by the EU. There might not be a referendum at the time of the general election, but the Government are committing themselves to a referendum on electoral reform. Might that be an opportunity for a further referendum?

William Cash: I would be delighted if the Bill proposing the referendum on electoral reform included a long title so vague as to enable us to get a referendum in on the other matters too. In constitutional terms, it is ludicrous for us to have a series of referendums on matters such as those just referred to, but not on the central question lying at the heart of these issues, which is who governs us and how.
	It is all too boring or exacting for the establishment and others, including some parts of the media, to examine the question of what lies at the heart of parliamentary sovereignty, particularly when we can watch Ant or Dec or The X Factor although our democracy is on the line. Parliamentary sovereignty is the elephant in the room, but not even the room can be mentioned if it has the word Europe on its portal. Ignoring parliamentary sovereignty, the freedom of choice and the democracy that it represents is like discussing religion without reference to the Bible or the Koran.
	No one has the right to ignore this issue, because it affects every person in this country. It is not settled policy and it cannot be laid to rest. It affects the voter in every way. It affects the rule of law, the role of the judiciary and that of the civil service, and only in Parliament can it be resolved. The Government's position, in contrast to that of the Conservative party, is one of the abandonment of the fundamental truths of that statement. The Government have duped the British people into dangerous waters, and that betrayal is represented by the signing and enactment of the Lisbon treaty. Indeed, a few years ago I and the then Foreign Secretary, now the Justice Secretary, exchanged questions for more than six months about whether Parliament and an Act of Parliament could prevail over the prerogative. Eventually he had to climb down.
	I remind the House that, for the first time in recent memory, the Conservative party has been, to all intents and purposes, united in supporting parliamentary democracy and sovereignty, rejecting not only the constitutional treaty but its terrible twin, the Lisbon treaty. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has reaffirmed my continuous call, made for more than a decade, for an association of nation states, which would be founded on the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. He has proposed a sovereignty Bill in that framework, because he recognises the danger that we are in. I have addressed the exact framework of a Bill for that purpose in my United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill, to be published tomorrow, which will be on the Order Paper and among the papers delivered to all hon. Members. My Bill has been considered and vetted by pre-eminent constitutional authorities and its text is encompassed on but one sheet of a parliamentary page, in a mere five short clauses.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being very generous in giving way. Is not tonight an example of the Conservative party speaking with one voice on Europe, with my hon. Friend rowing behind the Leader of the Opposition by bringing forward a proposal similar to what will be brought forward by the Conservative party in the next Government?

William Cash: I am delighted to confirm that I believe and hope that that will be case. I should mention, however, that as long ago as 1986, I proposed a supremacy of Parliament amendment to the Single European Act, which included the words:
	Nothing in this Act shall derogate from the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.
	Had that amendment been accepted by the then Speaker and voted through, when we had a substantial majority in the House, it would have retained for this country a veto over the working time directive, as well as over many other examples of damaging legislation under that Act, including recent legislation relating to the undermining of the City of London. That issue will become ever more apparent when the full implications of the European Commission's proposals for the financial regulation of the banks and financial services within the jurisdiction of the European Court become entrenched. Those proposals will effectively be unamendable without the kind of proposals that I am putting forward for the defence of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament.
	Indeed, in 1986 I was even refused the right to move my amendment. On three more recent occasions, however, not only have the House authorities, with advice, facilitated the moving of my supremacy of Parliament amendments-in relation to the then Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill in 2006 and, shortly afterwards, the Constitutional Reform Bill and other constitutional matters-but on those occasions my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney gave instructions to the Whips for my amendments to be endorsed by the party as a whole following the debate, overriding the Government's implementation of respective European legislation, and asked me whether our Whips could put forward Tellers to support my proposals.
	On every occasion, the Government have opposed those amendments, including by specifically voting against my sovereignty of Parliament amendments in respect of the Lisbon treaty, which is a policy that is nothing short of appeasement. I therefore applaud the proposals made by my right hon. Friend for a sovereignty Bill, as does the whole Conservative party. However, the question remains how far such a sovereignty Bill would extend. The proposals and issues that I will now address will certainly need to be encompassed by any such proposals of my own which I know will have the backing of a substantial majority of the Conservative party in Parliament and elsewhere, and, to judge from recent opinion polls, well over 70 per cent. of the electorate.
	I am putting forward a proposal based on the rejection of European government, albeit with co-operation on European trade, and on endorsing global trade and political co-operation and democracy in our national interest, with a reversion to an association of nation states in Europe, which is what I believe the people of this country really want. Indeed, the original White Paper that led to the European Communities Act 1972 clearly stated that we had to retain the veto as part of our parliamentary sovereignty, in order to sustain the vital national interests of the voters of the United Kingdom, and not only for our sake, but
	to preserve the very fabric of the European Community itself.
	Why so? Simply because there is no greater vital interest than freedom of choice at the ballot box in every part of the European Community-now the European Union. That has been severely undermined by successive treaties and by this Government's betrayal in signing and enacting the consolidating Lisbon Treaty, which encompasses all the treaties. Now is the time, in our manifesto, to reassert and reaffirm the full measure of parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom in line with our constitutional law and practice. We want not theology but practicality; we want not EU bureaucracy but UK democracy. It is not anti-European to be in favour of democracy.
	What are the constitutional issues that we have to address? In particular, they are the assertion of European Union institutions, including the European Commission and the European Court, that they have ultimate jurisdiction over our law-making, our laws and, specifically and dangerously, our constitution and our Parliament. Other countries, too, are concerned about those assertions, but we in the mother of Parliaments have a leadership role to play in defending the rights of our voters to continue their freedom to make their choice at the ballot box without let or hindrance. That must be the case irrespective of majority voting, irrespective of the lethal power of the former so-called co-decision procedure in the European Parliament-now ominously described as the ordinary legislative procedure-and irrespective of the assertions of the European Court of Justice. That is no less of an issue than when we had to resist invasions of another kind that threatened to undermine our sovereignty and our nationhood in the dark days of the 1930s and 1940s.
	Until 1972 we were moving towards greater democracy, but we have been moving away from it since then, and we must redress the balance in terms of our parliamentary sovereignty now, in the coming general election. Our constitutional case law is crystal clear. The judgments of Lord Denning in MacCarthys  v. Smith, Lord Diplock in Garland  v. British Rail and Lord Laws in the Metric Martyrs cases all correctly assert the tradition and history of this country for centuries-certainly since the Reform Acts of the mid-19th century, when modern democracy was born-that the latest Westminster enactment, clearly and expressly stated, prevails against any past enactments inconsistent with it or overriding it, including those that are derived from the implementation of the European Communities Act 1972. That is specifically the case when the words
	notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972
	are placed in the inner bailey of a Westminster enactment.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney has made it clear that he regards the repatriation of economic competitiveness as an imperative requirement, just as Jefferson rightly insisted on states' rights. My right hon. Friend stated only this week that his watchword is responsibility. That approach has lain at the heart of my efforts of the past 25 years to insist upon parliamentary sovereignty as the fulcrum of our representative government.
	The problem is now acute, because, although the European Court of Justice has asserted its claims for more than 40 years in the cases of Handelsgesellschaft, Van Gend en Loos and Costa  v. ENEL, those were but puny assertions until the enactment of the Lisbon treaty, which the Government have treacherously driven through. That treaty includes declaration 19, which gives guidance to our courts and others and which asserts and affirms the case law of the European Court. That case law involves the Court asserting its jurisdiction over not only our laws and law-making, but our constitution, which belongs to the British people, the voters at the ballot boxes and no one else.
	It would be irresponsible to ignore this issue, and it would be equally irresponsible to allow the current state of affairs and the assertions of the European Court and the Lisbon treaty to be embedded by the effluxion of time. We should recall that other seminal constitutional change, in the beneficial direction of greater democracy, became embedded as this Parliament evolved through the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries as we moved towards greater democracy. It is unforgivable to allow the current undermining of our parliamentary sovereignty, away from our hard-won democracy, not to mention the necessity for serial radical reform of the procedures of the House. The gutting and guillotining of Bills and the Government's refusal to devote proper time for Bills to be debated undermines our parliamentary sovereignty. I regret to have to say that I had to describe our Parliament in my evidence to the Wright Committee as a sham for that reason. I would add to those issues the way in which we have been invaded by these assertions from the European institutions.
	We need to restore our democracy, and reasserting parliamentary sovereignty is essential in that cause. To prevent discussion in the media or the BBC would be, and is, an outrage, and it would be irresponsible merely to endorse the principle of sovereignty without dealing with the problem in its entirety. For if we were merely to fill half the cup of sovereignty by enacting an inadequate sovereignty Bill in our response to the European integration process, the Lisbon treaty and the assertions of the European Court, we would be handing an opportunity to our own courts, including the Supreme Court, in the interpretation of any present or future legislation, to endorse the assertions of the European Court over our constitution and law-making in the light of the declaration of the primacy of European law set out in declaration 19 in an annexe to the Lisbon treaty.
	We must explicitly and expressly restrain our judiciary from having any opportunity of so interpreting European legislation and applying the constitutional assertions of the European Court, precisely so that we may explicitly preserve our own parliamentary sovereignty and with it the rights of the British people, who have fought and died over many generations, with blood and treasure. This is their Parliament, not our Parliament, and we not only have no right to take away their heritage, but we have a duty to preserve it.
	We need, in the words of John of Gaunt, a moat defensive to the invasion of this House. As John of Gaunt clearly stated-

Chris Bryant: This is Shakespeare.

William Cash: As Shakespeare said, using the words of John of Gaunt, we must defend
	This land of such dear souls, this dear, dear land,
	Dear for her reputation through the world,
	which, as he put it, is now leased out-and, I say, with this latest treaty in mind,
	is now bound in with shame,
	With inky blots, and rotten parchment bonds.
	As he continued:
	That England, that was wont to conquer others,
	Hath made a shameful conquest of itself-
	with the betrayal of our people by this Government over the Lisbon treaty. That is why we must reaffirm and reassert our parliamentary sovereignty and successfully defend ourselves yet again, as we have so often over centuries past.

Chris Bryant: It is always a great delight to hear the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). I heard him referred to the other day as a pillar of the community and a pillar of Parliament, but I am afraid that his speech this evening has shown that he is rather more an ornamental than a load-bearing pillar. As to his lengthy reference to John of Gaunt, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that these were the words of John of Gaunt himself, but they were written by William Shakespeare in Richard II. Richard II, of course, was removed by Parliament on the instruction of Henry Bolingbroke; and Richard II paid for the refurbishing of Westminster Hall so that the hammer-beam ceiling could be inserted.
	Notwithstanding all that, the hon. Gentleman has advanced his argument many times, and I find that trying to grasp his argument is rather like trying to grasp hold of a lizard, as all we end up with is a little bit of the lizard's tail. The hon. Gentleman has nevertheless done us-certainly the Government-a very great favour today because he has shown us how distrustful he is of his own Front-Bench team. He has shown us precisely that he does not trust a word that the smokescreen master general who leads his party has said about a sovereignty Bill. He does not believe that the parliamentary sovereignty Bill his leader has suggested should be brought forward will meet what the hon. Gentleman believes is the problem.  [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) agrees with the hon. Gentleman, so he does not trust the leader of the Conservative party either.

Peter Bone: The Minister is making this up. It is pure tosh and fiction.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Stone has just exemplified, yet again, from his naughty boy corner at the back of the Chamber, precisely what the situation would be like if there were a Conservative Government-a Conservative Government who were completely and utterly in hock to the ludicrous naughty boys at the back of the Chamber, who have been arguing for many years-

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not give way, because I have- [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. At the moment it is very clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Chris Bryant: rose-

William Cash: rose-

Chris Bryant: And I am still not giving way, because I want to answer some of the hon. Gentleman's points. He referred to his Bill, which he titles the United Kingdom Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill, but he fundamentally misunderstands the history of this House and our constitutional settlement. He is simply wrong: Parliament is sovereign; there is absolutely no need to assert its sovereignty. We agreed, when we voted through the European Communities Act in 1972, that we wanted to join the Community and, eventually, the European Union. If this House chose to do so, it could decide to repeal the 1972 Act; the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that. For that matter, the Lisbon treaty allows member states to withdraw from the EU. We have absolute sovereignty. Indeed, the then Solicitor-General made it absolutely clear by saying:
	It would make a nonsense of the necessity for Community law to have the same effect in every member State if the United Kingdom, any more than any other member State, could choose by national law to override what it did not like. The principle of Community law having precedence throughout the Community is one that operates for the mutual benefit of all member States.-[ Official Report, 13 June 1972; Vol. 838, c. 1317.]
	That is not a quotation from the Solicitor-General today; it is from the Solicitor-General of 1972, the Conservative Lord Howe of Aberavon, who made an extremely good point. The hon. Member for Stone says that he has to bring forward his own parliamentary sovereignty Bill, and I suggest that that is because he does not trust the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron).

William Cash: May I just say, very quickly, that I have given three examples whereby my right hon. Friend has supported my supremacy or sovereignty of Parliament amendments? That is the proof of the pudding.

Chris Bryant: I think that the pudding has yet to be eaten-or, indeed, presented, because the truth is that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would
	introduce a new law, in the form of a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill, to make it clear that ultimate authority stays in this country, in our Parliament.
	He went on to say that his idea
	is not about Westminster striking down individual items of EU legislation...It is about an assurance that the final word on our laws is here in Britain.
	But that is precisely the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has called for this evening. He does want the UK to be able to strike down individual EU laws, does he not?  [ Interruption. ] Yes, he does. Of course he does.

William Cash: I want to make sure that the European Court of Justice and our Supreme Court do not, as in the Factortame case, strike down Acts that are passed by the democratic wish of the voters of this country.

Chris Bryant: And if the courts do not, he wants us to be able to strike down European laws. That is precisely my point. Consequently, the argument that he makes is completely fallacious, and, for that matter, so is the argument that his party leader makes. It is made not deliberately but inadvertently to mislead the country. It is a smokescreen, because it tries to pretend that, by some kind of assertion, there will be no danger to Britain. However, I should argue that if what the hon. Gentleman says-that he wants to be able to strike down European laws and prevent the European Court of Justice from determining whether we have stood by our treaty requirements-is true, he is effectively saying that it would be okay for the UK to step out of the European Union. That is the ineluctable direction in which he is pushing- [ Interruption. ] Yes, of course: now he does agree that that is what he is arguing for.

William Cash: I said, I never said it.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear on many occasions that he would like a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, and that he would vote for us not to remain a member of the EU. Is that not the case?

William Cash: It is perfectly clear that I believe that we should have a referendum. It is also perfectly true that, given the functions of the European Union as currently constructed, I would vote no to ensure that the British people got what they really required.

Chris Bryant: I am very grateful: the hon. Gentleman has made it absolutely clear that he would vote for us to leave the European Union.

William Cash: I did not say that.

Chris Bryant: But the hon. Gentleman just clarified his position! He made it absolutely clear.

William Cash: The Minister is really confused; it is confused.com all over again. The plain fact is that a referendum would give the British people the opportunity to decide what kind of Europe they wanted to be a part of.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He either wants to be in the European Union or he does not. He seems to have made it absolutely clear: he wants a referendum so that he can vote for us to leave the European Union, unless he has some clever plan completely to change-
	 House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).